China is trying to stop the United Nations imposing sanctions on Sudan over the crisis in the Darfur regionto protect its oil imports from the country, say western diplomats.
For the past six years Beijing has been the Sudanese government's main backer, buying 70 per cent of its exports, servicing its $20bn debt and supplying the Khartoum government with most of its weapons.
Beijing oil imports jumped 35 per cent this year and its reliance on a growing number of rogue states to meet its needs is putting it on a collision course with the United States. Sudan and Iran together supply 20 per cent of China's oil imports, and if economic sanctions were applied to either, Beijing would be unable to sustain its high growth rates.
China was identified by diplomats as the member responsible for watering down last month's Security Council resolution which threatened to halt Sudan's oil exports if it did not stop atrocities in the Darfur region, where Arab militias are terrorising African villagers.
The issue will be put before the council again at the end of this month, when members will consider a report on progress made by Khartoum in halting the violence.
Sudan is the largest recipient of Chinese overseas investment and some 10,000 Chinese are working in the country. Since 1999 China has poured up to $3bn (£1.6bn) into developing several oil fields and building a 930-mile pipeline, refinery and port.
The UN Security Council is committed to reviewing the situation on a monthly basis. Given the stream of bad news, it could soon move to embargo Sudan's oil exports. China's ambassador to the UN, Wang Guangya, has already threatened to veto any such resolution, but diplomats say Beijing may have to give in to mounting international pressure.
Beijing is already under fire for its support of Burma, North Korea and Iran, countries also accused of breaches of international law. China was also singled out in the recently released Charles Duelfer report on Iraq's WMD, along with Russia and France, for breaching the UN sanctions against Iraq and subverting the oil-for-food programme. But China is almost alone in supporting Sudan. After the US imposed sanctions in November 1997, the rest of the world - apart from companies from Pakistan, India and Malaysia - have kept their distance.
Sudan's attraction to China, other than its pariah status, is that it holds Africa's greatest unexploited oil resources, even greater than those of the Gulf of Guinea. China has helped to boost Sudan's crude oil production from 150,000 barrels per day in 2000 to an expected 500,000 bpd in 2005. All this comes from oil fields in central and south-central regions which may hold only 15 per cent of Sudan's total reserves.
A failure in Sudan could severely damage China's shaky efforts to become a global player in the oil business. When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, China lost a key partner. Recently, two pipelines to import oil from Kazakhstan and Russia have been dogged by unexpected delays and problems.
Securing long-term supplies of oil, natural gas, iron ore, copper and other vital minerals has become the top priority for China, and it is investing everywhere. One new project is a 600-mile, $2bn pipeline from Burma's deepwater port of Sittwe, which will follow a projected railway line to China's south-western province of Yunnan. Another is the development of Gwadar Port in Pakistan, which China hopes to use to ship oil and gas from the Gulf. A pipeline to Xinjiang over the Karakoram Pass will follow.
Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=572309M
By Jasper Becker in Beijing, Independent UK, 15 October 2004.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Blood Money - Financing Mass Murder
The following is an excerpt from New York writer John Fitzgerald's "Blood Money" post. John raises the hugely important issue of business ethics and says he doesn't see how one need support genocide while supporting capitalism. Readers should look for his follow-up post on the Sudan story at his Secession blog later next week.
"...Several major corporations currently traded on the New York Stock Exchange have been handsomely financing the Sudanese government in return for petroleum. The report, based on extensive ongoing research by Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College, shows that over the last six years Sudan has used its massive wealth derived from petroleum sales for a similarly massive military build-up. “A measure of the profligacy of Khartoum’s military purchases,” Reeves explains, “can be seen in the recent completion of a deal with Russia for 10 MiG-29s – one of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world.
Despite a declaration from the United States that genocide is being perpetrated by the arab Sudanese government against black Africans, western corporations continue to have lucrative contracts with Khartoum. For instance, Siemens AG, a German corporation that already has a storied history from the Nazi era, is “presently building outside Khartoum the world’s largest diesel-powered electrical generating plant.”
It is this presence “that does so much to sustain the National Islamic Front and convince the regime that ultimately petrodollars speak louder than the cries of death and suffering in Darfur.”
- - -
Financing Mass Murder
Here, courtesy John Fitzgerald's Secession blog, is an excerpt from Nat Hentoff's October 8, 2004 post Financing Mass Murder - How free-market investors contribute to genocide in Darfur while they take the profits.
"In next week's column, details of Eric Reeves's plan: "A successful divestment campaign against these companies, and their ethically myopic investments, would bring real, unsustainable economic pressure to bear on Khartoum . . .
"Its single goal would be to force a commitment by such companies to suspend all commercial activities pending the end of genocidal destruction in Darfur and completion of a final peace agreement with the people of the south." (Emphasis added.)
And there will be ways in which many of you, individually, can become part of this divestment campaign. Says Reeves: "The time has come for ordinary citizens to make it impossible for this intransigently genocidal regime to enjoy the economic benefits of European and Asian commercial and economic support. Divestment from the equity (shares) of the most culpably guilty of these transnational companies is a moral imperative." More to come, specifically on those American institutions that profit by investing in the monstrous government in Sudan."
Note quotation: Sudan's oil reserves yield two billion dollars in annual revenue . . . —Samantha Power The New Yorker, August 30, 2004
- - -
Malaysian boy does his bit for Darfur kids - why can't the Chinese government help too?
Eleven-year-old Prithiv Raja Ratnam found an unused shoebox and covered it with pictures of affected children in Darfur. Labelling it a “donation box,” he went from class to class and told his schoolmates to chip in to help alleviate the children’s sufferings. His efforts netted RM547.87 for the Darfur Children's Fund.
According to his mother, pictures of the children published in Malaysia's The Star newspaper moved the boy and he asked her if he could do anything about it. “I told him to discuss it with his principal - after he did, he spent the next three days going from class to class urging his schoolmates to donate to the fund,” she said.
The Star is joining hands with the Malaysia Medical Relief Society (Mercy Malaysia) to raise funds for a humanitarian aid programme in West Darfur.
The contribution from Prithiv's school was among the donations received for the fund at a ceremony in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday. Krista Education, a Malaysian educational organisation that runs kindergartens also made donations. Its fund-raising involved some 80 kindergartens, which collected RM2,000 over three weeks. The donations were received by Mercy Malaysia.
Krista's CEO said: “We have to educate our children to look after the less fortunate and that habit should be cultivated early.”
Countries that have not contributed to the U.N.'s appeal for funds to feed the starving should take note. Children around the world and in Africa are the future caretakers of this planet. Education is key. The children of Darfur need our help. Now.
PS Jim, I totally agree with Jay's comments in response to your proposal to bomb Sudan post. The people of Darfur, facing disease and starvation. 85% of the deaths in the camps from disease and starvation. They are desperately in need of long term supplies of food, water, latrines and medicine -- not bombs. Why they are not getting enough food?
What can we can do to help get food and aid to those most in need? And what will become of the refugees over the next 1 - 2 years if the 191 member states of the U.N. can't even come up with the $150m the U.N. have been appealing for over past six months?
The media needs to shame countries into helping BIG TIME: China, India, Pakistan, Russia and the Arab countries to name a few. I wish the media would pick up on the issue of business ethics and start investigating and shaming the oil operations sitting in the vicinity of Darfur - especially the ones beloning to the Chinese Government. They are the ones funding Khartoum.
"...Several major corporations currently traded on the New York Stock Exchange have been handsomely financing the Sudanese government in return for petroleum. The report, based on extensive ongoing research by Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College, shows that over the last six years Sudan has used its massive wealth derived from petroleum sales for a similarly massive military build-up. “A measure of the profligacy of Khartoum’s military purchases,” Reeves explains, “can be seen in the recent completion of a deal with Russia for 10 MiG-29s – one of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world.
Despite a declaration from the United States that genocide is being perpetrated by the arab Sudanese government against black Africans, western corporations continue to have lucrative contracts with Khartoum. For instance, Siemens AG, a German corporation that already has a storied history from the Nazi era, is “presently building outside Khartoum the world’s largest diesel-powered electrical generating plant.”
It is this presence “that does so much to sustain the National Islamic Front and convince the regime that ultimately petrodollars speak louder than the cries of death and suffering in Darfur.”
- - -
Financing Mass Murder
Here, courtesy John Fitzgerald's Secession blog, is an excerpt from Nat Hentoff's October 8, 2004 post Financing Mass Murder - How free-market investors contribute to genocide in Darfur while they take the profits.
"In next week's column, details of Eric Reeves's plan: "A successful divestment campaign against these companies, and their ethically myopic investments, would bring real, unsustainable economic pressure to bear on Khartoum . . .
"Its single goal would be to force a commitment by such companies to suspend all commercial activities pending the end of genocidal destruction in Darfur and completion of a final peace agreement with the people of the south." (Emphasis added.)
And there will be ways in which many of you, individually, can become part of this divestment campaign. Says Reeves: "The time has come for ordinary citizens to make it impossible for this intransigently genocidal regime to enjoy the economic benefits of European and Asian commercial and economic support. Divestment from the equity (shares) of the most culpably guilty of these transnational companies is a moral imperative." More to come, specifically on those American institutions that profit by investing in the monstrous government in Sudan."
Note quotation: Sudan's oil reserves yield two billion dollars in annual revenue . . . —Samantha Power The New Yorker, August 30, 2004
- - -
Malaysian boy does his bit for Darfur kids - why can't the Chinese government help too?
Eleven-year-old Prithiv Raja Ratnam found an unused shoebox and covered it with pictures of affected children in Darfur. Labelling it a “donation box,” he went from class to class and told his schoolmates to chip in to help alleviate the children’s sufferings. His efforts netted RM547.87 for the Darfur Children's Fund.
According to his mother, pictures of the children published in Malaysia's The Star newspaper moved the boy and he asked her if he could do anything about it. “I told him to discuss it with his principal - after he did, he spent the next three days going from class to class urging his schoolmates to donate to the fund,” she said.
The Star is joining hands with the Malaysia Medical Relief Society (Mercy Malaysia) to raise funds for a humanitarian aid programme in West Darfur.
The contribution from Prithiv's school was among the donations received for the fund at a ceremony in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday. Krista Education, a Malaysian educational organisation that runs kindergartens also made donations. Its fund-raising involved some 80 kindergartens, which collected RM2,000 over three weeks. The donations were received by Mercy Malaysia.
Krista's CEO said: “We have to educate our children to look after the less fortunate and that habit should be cultivated early.”
Countries that have not contributed to the U.N.'s appeal for funds to feed the starving should take note. Children around the world and in Africa are the future caretakers of this planet. Education is key. The children of Darfur need our help. Now.
PS Jim, I totally agree with Jay's comments in response to your proposal to bomb Sudan post. The people of Darfur, facing disease and starvation. 85% of the deaths in the camps from disease and starvation. They are desperately in need of long term supplies of food, water, latrines and medicine -- not bombs. Why they are not getting enough food?
What can we can do to help get food and aid to those most in need? And what will become of the refugees over the next 1 - 2 years if the 191 member states of the U.N. can't even come up with the $150m the U.N. have been appealing for over past six months?
The media needs to shame countries into helping BIG TIME: China, India, Pakistan, Russia and the Arab countries to name a few. I wish the media would pick up on the issue of business ethics and start investigating and shaming the oil operations sitting in the vicinity of Darfur - especially the ones beloning to the Chinese Government. They are the ones funding Khartoum.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
World Food Day Saturday October 16: Name and shame the countries not contributing towards aid
On World Food Day, Saturday October 16, citizens of America and Britain can be proud of the contributions made by their countrymen and governments for the victims of Darfur.
The British have provided generous funding, several emergency plane loads of aid, logistical and financial support to AU troops, thousands of man hours of teeth gritting diplomacy, months of hard work by many British organisations, groups, charities, churches along with UK's 12 largest aid agencies and their aid workers on the ground who have risked (and some lost) their lives to help.
Plus, in addition to Prime Minister Tony Blair's historic visit to Khartoum, the highest ranking Western leader to meet with Sudan's government in Khartoum - and the first visit by a British leader since Sudan's independence in 1956 - he has pledged a further £100 million for next year if peace is agreed.
Last time I checked, the British were the second largest, after the U.S., cash donors for Darfur. The response of the British public and government has been huge, especially considering Britain is a small island that size wise could easily fit into the State of Texas.
Today (Friday) the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) announced a donation of $57 million in humanitarian assistance for Darfur. Total U.S. assistance for Darfur now stands at more than $302 million.
The U.S. is the largest contributor to the U.N. World Food Program (WFP) and to date has provided more than 186,000 metric tons of food aid for Darfur, valued at more than $170 million. For more information on USAID's ongoing efforts in Darfur please visit www.usaid.gov
It would be interesting to note the contributions made by China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Brazil and the Arab nations. Given that China has huge oil interests in Sudan and operations in the vicinity Darfur, it seems strange that the Chinese are not a major donor. China sits on the U.N. Security Council but, like others, seems to be getting away with contributing very little, if anything.
Also, India are doing great business with Sudan, doing deals, signing contracts and laying oil pipelines in Sudan. How much has India contributed to the humanitarian effort in Darfur and what is India, and the other countries just mentioned, doing to help the world's poorest nations?
And what about Sudan itself? It is super rich in oil and minerals with hundreds of millions spare dollars to spend on weaponary and MiGs from Russia. How come it is a member of the U.N. and does not buy food for its own people?
The U.N. asked donors for $300 million to help Darfur but to date has received only half. Some countries pledged contributions but have not paid up. The U.N., or someone, ought to name and shame those countries so the spotlight and pressure can be put upon them by the public, media and bloggers.
Today, to mark World Food Day on Saturday October 16, WFP, the world's largest humanitarian agency, tells the media that the plight of hundreds of millions of hungry people around the world has been overshadowed by the crisis in Darfur.
In one news report, WFP Executive Director James Morris emphasized his concern for the victims of Darfur, but he also stressed that for every hungry child who made world news headlines there were millions more who went unnoticed.
He was quoted as saying: "WFP is calling for a new focus on the "routine hungry", the people left without enough food, not because of natural disasters or conflict, but simply because they are too poor to provide for themselves and their families. These people -- who make up more than 90 percent of the world's hungry -- are hit even harder when high-profile emergencies take up the bulk of donor aid budgets."
Also today, the World Health Organisation (WHO) warned that the mortality rate in Darfur will not fall (70,000 deaths reported so far - 10,000 dying each month) unless countries provide more money.
“We are running on a threadbare, hand-to-mouth existence, and if the plight of these people in Darfur is as important to the international community as it seems to be then we would have expected more long-term support,” said Dr. David Nabarro, head of Who’s crisis operations.
The U.S. and U.K. have gone to a great deal of time, trouble, effort and expense to help the people of Sudan, and have given hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. Many other countries have also contributed generously. But today the U.N., WFP and WHO are saying people are dying from disease and starvation because of lack of funding. Last time I checked, WFP had 800 milllion USD in its coffers. What exactly is going on, does anybody know?
The U.N. comprises 191 member states. Surely, if they are not already doing so, member states ought to agree on paying a set sum each year to help feed the world. A fixed percentage, according to ability to pay, i.e. the wealthiest pay most and the poorest pay zero. That way, wealthy countries like China could end up being major donors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3747380.stm
The British have provided generous funding, several emergency plane loads of aid, logistical and financial support to AU troops, thousands of man hours of teeth gritting diplomacy, months of hard work by many British organisations, groups, charities, churches along with UK's 12 largest aid agencies and their aid workers on the ground who have risked (and some lost) their lives to help.
Plus, in addition to Prime Minister Tony Blair's historic visit to Khartoum, the highest ranking Western leader to meet with Sudan's government in Khartoum - and the first visit by a British leader since Sudan's independence in 1956 - he has pledged a further £100 million for next year if peace is agreed.
Last time I checked, the British were the second largest, after the U.S., cash donors for Darfur. The response of the British public and government has been huge, especially considering Britain is a small island that size wise could easily fit into the State of Texas.
Today (Friday) the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) announced a donation of $57 million in humanitarian assistance for Darfur. Total U.S. assistance for Darfur now stands at more than $302 million.
The U.S. is the largest contributor to the U.N. World Food Program (WFP) and to date has provided more than 186,000 metric tons of food aid for Darfur, valued at more than $170 million. For more information on USAID's ongoing efforts in Darfur please visit www.usaid.gov
It would be interesting to note the contributions made by China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Brazil and the Arab nations. Given that China has huge oil interests in Sudan and operations in the vicinity Darfur, it seems strange that the Chinese are not a major donor. China sits on the U.N. Security Council but, like others, seems to be getting away with contributing very little, if anything.
Also, India are doing great business with Sudan, doing deals, signing contracts and laying oil pipelines in Sudan. How much has India contributed to the humanitarian effort in Darfur and what is India, and the other countries just mentioned, doing to help the world's poorest nations?
And what about Sudan itself? It is super rich in oil and minerals with hundreds of millions spare dollars to spend on weaponary and MiGs from Russia. How come it is a member of the U.N. and does not buy food for its own people?
The U.N. asked donors for $300 million to help Darfur but to date has received only half. Some countries pledged contributions but have not paid up. The U.N., or someone, ought to name and shame those countries so the spotlight and pressure can be put upon them by the public, media and bloggers.
Today, to mark World Food Day on Saturday October 16, WFP, the world's largest humanitarian agency, tells the media that the plight of hundreds of millions of hungry people around the world has been overshadowed by the crisis in Darfur.
In one news report, WFP Executive Director James Morris emphasized his concern for the victims of Darfur, but he also stressed that for every hungry child who made world news headlines there were millions more who went unnoticed.
He was quoted as saying: "WFP is calling for a new focus on the "routine hungry", the people left without enough food, not because of natural disasters or conflict, but simply because they are too poor to provide for themselves and their families. These people -- who make up more than 90 percent of the world's hungry -- are hit even harder when high-profile emergencies take up the bulk of donor aid budgets."
Also today, the World Health Organisation (WHO) warned that the mortality rate in Darfur will not fall (70,000 deaths reported so far - 10,000 dying each month) unless countries provide more money.
“We are running on a threadbare, hand-to-mouth existence, and if the plight of these people in Darfur is as important to the international community as it seems to be then we would have expected more long-term support,” said Dr. David Nabarro, head of Who’s crisis operations.
The U.S. and U.K. have gone to a great deal of time, trouble, effort and expense to help the people of Sudan, and have given hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. Many other countries have also contributed generously. But today the U.N., WFP and WHO are saying people are dying from disease and starvation because of lack of funding. Last time I checked, WFP had 800 milllion USD in its coffers. What exactly is going on, does anybody know?
The U.N. comprises 191 member states. Surely, if they are not already doing so, member states ought to agree on paying a set sum each year to help feed the world. A fixed percentage, according to ability to pay, i.e. the wealthiest pay most and the poorest pay zero. That way, wealthy countries like China could end up being major donors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3747380.stm
Friday, October 15, 2004
Land mine that killed British charity aid workers in Darfur in breach of international humanitarian law
Save the Children U.K. employees Rafe Bullick, 34, a program manager from Scotland, and Nourredine Issa Tayeb, 41, a water engineer from Sudan, were killed last Sunday when their vehicle hit an anti-tank landmine in the Ummbaro area of Darfur. Another Sudanese, the driver, was seriously injured.
U.N. humanitarian coordinator Manuel Aranda Da Silva told reporters preliminary reports showed there was a strong possibility the mine had been freshly laid, which constituted a breach of international humanitarian law.
"The outcome of the preliminary inquiries also confirm that the road was travelled recently by other humanitarian agencies so indicate a strong possibility that this is new land mine laid down recently," he said, adding the mine was planted in a narrow place between two trees where every car would have to drive through.
“We extend our deepest sympathies to the friends and families of our two colleagues,” said CEO of Save the Children USA. “Their deaths are tragic reminders of the dangers that thousands of our workers face every day as they seek to bring real and lasting change to children in need around the world.”
U.N. humanitarian coordinator Manuel Aranda Da Silva told reporters preliminary reports showed there was a strong possibility the mine had been freshly laid, which constituted a breach of international humanitarian law.
"The outcome of the preliminary inquiries also confirm that the road was travelled recently by other humanitarian agencies so indicate a strong possibility that this is new land mine laid down recently," he said, adding the mine was planted in a narrow place between two trees where every car would have to drive through.
“We extend our deepest sympathies to the friends and families of our two colleagues,” said CEO of Save the Children USA. “Their deaths are tragic reminders of the dangers that thousands of our workers face every day as they seek to bring real and lasting change to children in need around the world.”
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Blair presses for $150M in aid for Darfur
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia, Oct 7, 2004 (AP) -- At a conference to discuss Africa's future, British Prime Minister Tony Blair pressed the international community to raise $150 million to help people caught up by violence in Sudan's western Darfur region.
Mr Blair said Britain plans to train 20,000 African peacekeepers over the next five years to boost Africa's ability to respond to conflicts like the one in Darfur.
British Minister Tony Blair, holds a news conference with his Ethiopian counterpart Meles Zenawi, at the 2nd meeting of the Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Thursday, Oct. 7, 2004
"The international community should be supporting Africa's own solutions to its problems, as we are in Sudan," Blair said, adding that US$150 million (euro122 million) was needed to help the victims of fighting in Darfur.
Britain is geared to use its upcoming chairmanship of the G-8 group of industrialized nations to spearhead the effort to help Africa.
"The international community should be supporting Africa's own solutions to its problems, as we are in Sudan," Blair said, adding that a US$150 million (euro122 million) to help the victims of fighting in Darfur.
Britain is geared to use its upcoming chairmanship of the G-8 group of industrialized nations to spearhead the effort next year.
In Ethiopia, Blair chaired a meeting of his Africa Commission which will spell out what Africa needs to develop and explain what held back the continent in the past. Its findings will come out in time for Britain's presidency of the G-8 and the leadership of the European Union later in 2005.
"Next year will be the year of decision for Africa and the international community," Blair told the commission whose members includes Irish rocker Bob Geldof, Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa and Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. "The time for excuses will be over."
Blair said that a European Union's rapid-reaction force being set up could respond to a crisis in Africa within 10 days if African peacekeepers fail to stem future problems.
"There will be times when Africa cannot stop a conflict on its own, Blair said. "Then, the rest of the international community must be ready to help."
But a senior African Union official said that while poor Africans need security, the also could use access to markets in Europe and the United States in order to earn their way out of poverty.
The subsidies "are very serious as they threaten the livelihoods of millions of African producers. If they are stopped, the lives of millions of Africans would change dramatically," African Union Commission Chairman Alpha Oumar Konare said through a spokesman.
Even if "its debt is canceled and foreign aid is doubled, Africa would still be far from approaching the US$67 billion dollars (euro54 billion) it needs annually to develop," Konare said.
In 27 years, Africa will double its population, which could be an opportunity if the continent prospers - but could pose a risk to the entire planet if poverty persists, he added.
Blair expressed the same concerns.
"We know that poverty and instability leads to weak states which can become havens for terrorists and other criminals," Blair said. "Even before 9/11, al-Qaida had bases in Africa ... They still do, hiding in places where they can go undisturbed by weak governments."
In the past 50 years, 186 coups and 26 major wars have killed over seven million people and cost Africa US$250 billion (euro203 billion). Half a dozen African nations are still troubled by serious conflicts, the United Nations says.
African countries are also saddled with US$305 billion (euro247 billion) in debts, and their products account for barely two percent of world trade. Investment in the continent has shrunk to US$11 billion (euro8.9 billion) a year.
HIV complicates efforts to spur economic growth and development in Africa. More than 26 million Africans are infected with HIV and an estimated 15 million have died from AIDS, including many people from the continent's relatively small educated and business class.
"The problems are multiple, we know them all," Blair said. "The difference is this time we have to put together a plan that is comprehensive in its scope and has at its core a real partnership between Africa and the developed world."
Geldof said he would was " not going to let the Africa Commission just be a talking shop." The Irish rocker's fund-raising campaign 20 years ago raised millions in donations from around the world for the starving of Ethiopia, and "we are going to get solutions and make sure they are enforced," he said.
http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=5869
Mr Blair said Britain plans to train 20,000 African peacekeepers over the next five years to boost Africa's ability to respond to conflicts like the one in Darfur.
British Minister Tony Blair, holds a news conference with his Ethiopian counterpart Meles Zenawi, at the 2nd meeting of the Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Thursday, Oct. 7, 2004
"The international community should be supporting Africa's own solutions to its problems, as we are in Sudan," Blair said, adding that US$150 million (euro122 million) was needed to help the victims of fighting in Darfur.
Britain is geared to use its upcoming chairmanship of the G-8 group of industrialized nations to spearhead the effort to help Africa.
"The international community should be supporting Africa's own solutions to its problems, as we are in Sudan," Blair said, adding that a US$150 million (euro122 million) to help the victims of fighting in Darfur.
Britain is geared to use its upcoming chairmanship of the G-8 group of industrialized nations to spearhead the effort next year.
In Ethiopia, Blair chaired a meeting of his Africa Commission which will spell out what Africa needs to develop and explain what held back the continent in the past. Its findings will come out in time for Britain's presidency of the G-8 and the leadership of the European Union later in 2005.
"Next year will be the year of decision for Africa and the international community," Blair told the commission whose members includes Irish rocker Bob Geldof, Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa and Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. "The time for excuses will be over."
Blair said that a European Union's rapid-reaction force being set up could respond to a crisis in Africa within 10 days if African peacekeepers fail to stem future problems.
"There will be times when Africa cannot stop a conflict on its own, Blair said. "Then, the rest of the international community must be ready to help."
But a senior African Union official said that while poor Africans need security, the also could use access to markets in Europe and the United States in order to earn their way out of poverty.
The subsidies "are very serious as they threaten the livelihoods of millions of African producers. If they are stopped, the lives of millions of Africans would change dramatically," African Union Commission Chairman Alpha Oumar Konare said through a spokesman.
Even if "its debt is canceled and foreign aid is doubled, Africa would still be far from approaching the US$67 billion dollars (euro54 billion) it needs annually to develop," Konare said.
In 27 years, Africa will double its population, which could be an opportunity if the continent prospers - but could pose a risk to the entire planet if poverty persists, he added.
Blair expressed the same concerns.
"We know that poverty and instability leads to weak states which can become havens for terrorists and other criminals," Blair said. "Even before 9/11, al-Qaida had bases in Africa ... They still do, hiding in places where they can go undisturbed by weak governments."
In the past 50 years, 186 coups and 26 major wars have killed over seven million people and cost Africa US$250 billion (euro203 billion). Half a dozen African nations are still troubled by serious conflicts, the United Nations says.
African countries are also saddled with US$305 billion (euro247 billion) in debts, and their products account for barely two percent of world trade. Investment in the continent has shrunk to US$11 billion (euro8.9 billion) a year.
HIV complicates efforts to spur economic growth and development in Africa. More than 26 million Africans are infected with HIV and an estimated 15 million have died from AIDS, including many people from the continent's relatively small educated and business class.
"The problems are multiple, we know them all," Blair said. "The difference is this time we have to put together a plan that is comprehensive in its scope and has at its core a real partnership between Africa and the developed world."
Geldof said he would was " not going to let the Africa Commission just be a talking shop." The Irish rocker's fund-raising campaign 20 years ago raised millions in donations from around the world for the starving of Ethiopia, and "we are going to get solutions and make sure they are enforced," he said.
http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=5869
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Blair arrives in Khartoum to press for Darfur peace - Blair outlines demands to Sudan
British Prime Minister Tony Blair flew in to Khartoum earlier today (Wednesday). He is the most senior Western government official to visit Sudan since the Darfur conflict erupted. After talks with President Bashir, he called for a peace agreement to cover the whole of Sudan by the end of 2004
Mr Blair told a press conference that he handed the Sudanese leadership a list of five demands to deal with the "terrible" situation in Darfur.
He urged the government of Sudan to adopt a five-point plan designed to help end the slaughter in Darfur and ease the humanitarian crisis there.
In talks with President Bashir and his deputy, the premier made plain the international community's continuing concern at the conflict in Darfur, which has left up to a million refugees, as rebels fight with government-backed militia gangs.
"We want the government to commit to reaching a comprehensive agreement, north and south, in Sudan by the end of the year," Blair said. He coupled his blunt message with the announcement of a GBP 100 million aid package to the country next year.
He called for a major boost to African Union forces, all government troops and militia to be identified, agreement with the rebels to withdraw troops, an overall peace accord for Sudan, and Khartoum to facilitate aid distribution.
Blair said the fact he had travelled to Khartoum showed "the seriousness with which this is taken".
"The international focus will not go away while this issue remains outstanding," he added, describing talks with Bashir and Vice President Ali Osman Taha as "frank and open and, I think, constructive".
Mr Blair urged Sudan to:
Allow more African Union troops to take part in peacekeeping.
Identify its own troops and its sponsored militias to aid monitoring.
Reach agreement with the rebels to withdraw both sides' soldiers from Darfur.
Reach a comprehensive agreement covering ethnic tensions throughout the country.
Give a commitment to help humanitarian aid get through to the suffering.
British officials said later they were confident the Sudanese government would agree on paper to the demands but stressed they were cautious and wanted to see "the reality on the ground" changed.
Mr Blair later told reporters he acknowledged some progress had already been made.
But, speaking on the first leg of a three-day Africa visit, the Prime Minister stressed: "It's important that people in Darfur realise that the international community is determined to ensure that when we talk with the government of Sudan it realises it has to take on these responsibilities and the rebel forces likewise recognise they have responsibilities in this situation and the international focus will not go away while this situation remains outstanding."
Mr Blair, looking fit and relaxed in the sweltering Sudan heat despite his recent heart procedure, flies on later today to Ethiopia for talks with its premier Meles Zenawi before chairing the second meeting of his Africa Commission tomorrow.
The Prime Minister has promised to make the future of Africa one of the centrepieces of Britain's presidency of the G8 group of leading industrialised democracies next year.
Ahead of Mr Blair's arrival:
-- Ismail said Britain could push all sides to reach an agreement at peace talks in NIgeria due to reconvene on October 21, after an earlier round of talks in Abuja collapsed last month and said he hoped for more aid for reconstruction from Britain, one of the biggest aid donors to Darfur.
-- Mr Blair's spokesman said, "Rather than concentrate on threats and sanctions, we would like to focus on trying to get progress that would make sanctions not necessary." British officials say Blair's message to Khartoum officials will be three-fold -- negotiate a settlement with rebels in Darfur; allow "unfettered access" for aid workers; and accept an expanded role for African Union peacekeepers.
Blair, who has pledged to make Africa one of his key policies during 2005, when Britain holds the rotating presidency of both the G8 rich nations' club and the European Union, was scheduled to spend around five hours in Sudan.
After talks with Beshir and Taha, he will hold a press conference, before flying to Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, for a meeting of the Commission for Africa, his personal project designed to galvanize development efforts.
This evening, in Ethiopia, he will have talks with the prime minister, Meles Zenawi. Tomorrow, Mr Blair will make local visits and then outline his vision for Africa in a speech setting out his case for change. International Development Secretary Hilary Benn and Treasury Chief Secretary Paul Boateng are accompanying Mr Blair on the trip.
The stopover in Sudan - the first-ever visit by a British leader since Khartoum got independence from Britain in 1956 - had been kept under wraps for security reasons, with London only confirming the trip after Blair's aircraft took off on Tuesday evening.
Mr Blair will not visit Darfur, with his spokesman saying the limited time available was best used hammering home the international community's message to the Sudanese government. "We know what the situation in Darfur is. The important thing is that something is done about it at government level," said the Prime Minister's spokesman.
Blair's spokesman refused to be drawn on whether Britain supported sanctions against the north African Muslim state, or whether it would join the United States in considering the violence in Darfur as genocide. He said the premier was simply "relaying and re-emphasising" international worries. But he stressed that Blair would expect clear answers on issues such as a ceasefire, peace negotiations and aid efforts. "Those are points which we believe the Sudanese government understand. And I think what we need to see is what the response of the Sudanese government is to the prime minister's visit," he said.
The trip to Sudan is part of Mr Blair's three-day Africa tour, which will also take him to Ethiopia where he will attend a session of the Commission for Africa, an Africa task force launched by himself in February.
Blair will arrive in Addis Ababa today, along with Benn, Treasury chief secretary Paul Boateng and Live Aid founder Bob Geldof, for the opening of the three day meeting of the commission.
Mr Blair will attend the second session of his Commission for Africa in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa. The talks will also be attended by Band Aid star Sir Bob Geldof, 20 years after his appeal to help people starving there raised GBP 90m.
The commission will report in time for its findings to be discussed by the G8 group of leading industrialised nations next year, when Britain will be in charge of both the European Union and the G8 - the club of the world's richest countries.
Mr Blair has promised to make the plight of Africa one of the twin focuses of his chairmanship, along with climate change.
"There is a moral imperative to do this," said International Development Minister Hilary Benn, who will join Blair in Addis Ababa for the two-day meeting starting on Thursday. "If we don't tackle poverty, injustice and inequality round the world, then we're never going to have a safe and secure world in which to live," he told Reuters.
"Something concrete has got to be done this time. Unless the politicians actually do something about unfair trade rules, no amount of aid money is going to solve poverty," said Helen Palmer, of aid agency Oxfam.
The commission aims to propose action from the West on boosting aid, obtaining more debt relief and making trade rules fairer for African exporters. "Then the priorities for Africa itself are tackling conflict and promoting good government," Benn said.
Britain set up the commission, including senior figures from across Africa, earlier this year to highlight to problems in a continent Blair called a "scar on the conscience of the world".
Africa expert Thomas Cargill, of the Royal Institute of International Affairs said the most urgent priorities were bigger investment, pressure on poorly performing governments and tighter controls on Western firms to act in a moral fashion.
- - -
ANNAN'S UN ASSESSMENT
In a stinging U.N. assessment on Monday, Annan said Sudan made no progress last month in stopping attacks on civilians or punishing culprits. Nor did the government make progress in nailing down a ceasefire, he added.
While the U.S. government believes genocide is taking place, two top U.N. human rights watchdogs told the council last week war crimes probably occurred on "a large and systematic scale".
British officials said they would reserve judgement on how to qualify the crisis until a U.N. inquiry.
Britain is one of the largest donors for Darfur, with 62.5 million pounds ($111 million) committed this year
- - -
DONORS NOT MEETING PLEDGES FOR DARFUR AID
Oct 5 (AFP) - The U.S. called Tuesday for international donors to fulfill pledges to provide assistance to stem the crisis in Darfur, accusing some nations of failing to live up to their promises.
"We've been very outspoken about the need for the international community to do more to help the people of Darfur," deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. "It is a problem of a huge scale beyond the capability of any one country".
"There have been pledges from the international community, pledges that are important and necessary, but that have gone unfilled to date," he told reporters. "It's important ... that they be filled."
Ereli did not name the countries that have failed to meet their pledges and was unable to specify the amount of the shortfall although on Monday the World Food Program said it was short some 220 million of the 865 million dollars it needs to feed some 11 million refugees worldwide, including 200,000 from Darfur who have crossed the Sudanese border into Chad.
Late last month at a donors conference in Norway, representatives of the Sudanese government and the southern rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) appealed for the international community to provide about 300 million dollars in aid to cover emergency needs in Darfur.
The United States is the largest single contributor to Darfur aid efforts and on Tuesday, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) gave a 600,000-dollar grant to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to help double the number of human rights monitors there to 16.
To date, Washington has provided 243 million dollars in aid for Darfur, nearly 62 million dollars of which had been earmarked for the refugees in Chad, and expects that figure to rise to nearly 300 million through the end of the next fiscal year, according to USAID.
In addition, the United States has set aside 27.4 million dollars to help fund the African Union monitoring mission in Darfur, USAID said in a statement.
- - -
U.N. SAYS DARFUR CRISIS WILL LAST AT LEAST UNTIL THE END OF NEXT YEAR
No quick end to Darfur humanitarian crisis - U.N.
Here is a copy of an October 6 report via Reuters that says no quick end to Darfur humanitarian crisis in Darfur - it will last at least until the end of next year, a U.N. official warned on Wednesday.
U.N. World Food Programme spokesman Greg Barrow said the crisis would drag on because so many Darfur residents were still in refugee camps, unable to harvest this year or plant crops for 2005.
"The aid crisis is going to continue at least until the end of next year," Barrow said in a briefing for reporters accompanying British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Sudan.
This year's intense media focus on Darfur and a stream of high-level foreign visitors had helped, but the world must not forget the crisis when attention fades, he added.
"This is a very, very precarious situation. The levels of humanitarian aid will need to be sustained at or above the same level as this year."
Barrow said the World Food Programme had received $167 million of its $204 million budget for emergency food aid in Darfur this year. He urged international donors to quickly make up the shortfall and to prepare for further aid next year.
"We're still not there in terms of overall funding."
After years of skirmishes between Arab nomadic tribes and mainly non-Arab farmers over scarce resources, rebels launched a revolt last year. They accuse Khartoum of supporting Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, to loot and burn villages.
The United States has called the violence genocide.
But Sudan has dismissed the charge and denies supporting the Janjaweed militiamen, calling them outlaws.
The United Nations has threatened oil sanctions unless Khartoum controls the violence.
Barrow said U.N. personnel in the region had noticed an improvement in security for relief workers in Darfur, an area the size of France with a population of about six million.
Bandits were, however, still harassing U.N. personnel at the rate of at least one incident a week, he said.
"It is difficult to estimate, if our trucks or personnel get stopped, if it's by the militia or rebels or whoever. We're not talking about people getting killed but being accosted by people with guns," he said.
Barrow urged Blair to press Sudanese officials to keep giving good access for relief trucks and personnel.
"The Sudanese government has already done a lot as a result of international pressure to improve access," he said. "We need them to keep that up."
- - -
BRITISH BASED OXFAM SAYS SITUATION IN DARFUR IS NOT IMPROVING
Aid agencies urged Blair to take a tough line in Sudan
"The situation in Darfur is not improving. Nearly six months after the ceasefire, there are daily reports of violence and insecurity," British-based Oxfam said in a statement.
The charity Save the Children said foreign aid must now focus on lifting Ethiopia out of poverty, rather than just keeping people alive with food handouts.
Spokesman Mike Aaronson, said millions of people in the historically famine-prone northeastern highlands are "worse off and more vulnerable than ever".
He said "lack of political will" by world leaders and "paltry" aid have not helped the nation combat persistent food shortages.
"It is shocking that 20 years after Band Aid millions of children still experience hunger," he said.
"Yet, in the last 20 years, donors have shown a lack of political will and a shortsighted approach to aid that has compounded poverty in Ethiopia."
Ethiopia is one of the poorest nations in the world - the average annual income is GBP 56.
Donor countries must inject more investments in education and health care in a bid to help the country break out of poverty, he said.
"A great deal of money has gone into keeping people alive with food aid," Mr Aaronson added.
"However, in comparison, the sum invested in longer-term development to lift Ethiopia out of the cycle of poverty has been paltry."
- - -
NAME THE COUNTRIES NOT PAYING FOR AID
Why does the UN not name and shame and update its figures?
According to the latest news reports, the U.N. says some 50,000 people have died in Darfur from violence, hunger or disease.
The U.N. complains through the media that countries are not paying for food and aid but it refuses to name those countries. Why?
On the other hand, the U.N. seems to pull figures out of the air and expect donors to pay up based on those figures. If, as they claim, thousands of people are dying each month - how come the figure has been stuck at 50,000 deaths for the past three months? Going by reports, it seems the numbers should have changed by at least 80,000 - 120,000.
USAID predicted 300,000 deaths by Christmas, even if enough aid reached the victims of Darfur.
The World Food Programme and others do of course do great work, but when there is so much at stake it's reasonable to question what exactly is going on. People tend not to donate when they think it won't make any difference. My feelings are that charities and bodies like the UN need to sort this out asap to restore public confidence in the work of the aid agencies (see next report here below).
- - -
SUDAN'S U.N. AMBASSADOR CHALLENGES U.S. OVER 'GENOCIDE'
Today's report from UK Scotsman says Sudan's UN ambassador has challenged the United States to send troops to Darfur if it really believes a genocide is taking place as the US Congress and President George W. Bush's administration have determined. Excerpt:
Elfatih Mohamed Erwa was asked yesterday about the effect of the US "genocide" designations when both Bush and his Democratic challenger John Kerry ruled out sending US troops to end the 19-month conflict in their debate.
"If it is really a genocide they should be committed to send troops," the Sudanese ambassador said. "This is why I don't think they're genuine about its being genocide."
Would US troops really be welcome?
"I won't say I welcome them because I don't have the authority to say that, but if they want to do that, let them talk to us." Erwa said.
US Ambassador John Danforth, when told Erwa raised the possibility of discussing the deployment of US troops, said: "I've never heard of such a thing before. It's certainly an attention grabber."
"It's a curious idea, but I don't think it has a future," he said.
Mr Blair told a press conference that he handed the Sudanese leadership a list of five demands to deal with the "terrible" situation in Darfur.
He urged the government of Sudan to adopt a five-point plan designed to help end the slaughter in Darfur and ease the humanitarian crisis there.
In talks with President Bashir and his deputy, the premier made plain the international community's continuing concern at the conflict in Darfur, which has left up to a million refugees, as rebels fight with government-backed militia gangs.
"We want the government to commit to reaching a comprehensive agreement, north and south, in Sudan by the end of the year," Blair said. He coupled his blunt message with the announcement of a GBP 100 million aid package to the country next year.
He called for a major boost to African Union forces, all government troops and militia to be identified, agreement with the rebels to withdraw troops, an overall peace accord for Sudan, and Khartoum to facilitate aid distribution.
Blair said the fact he had travelled to Khartoum showed "the seriousness with which this is taken".
"The international focus will not go away while this issue remains outstanding," he added, describing talks with Bashir and Vice President Ali Osman Taha as "frank and open and, I think, constructive".
Mr Blair urged Sudan to:
Allow more African Union troops to take part in peacekeeping.
Identify its own troops and its sponsored militias to aid monitoring.
Reach agreement with the rebels to withdraw both sides' soldiers from Darfur.
Reach a comprehensive agreement covering ethnic tensions throughout the country.
Give a commitment to help humanitarian aid get through to the suffering.
British officials said later they were confident the Sudanese government would agree on paper to the demands but stressed they were cautious and wanted to see "the reality on the ground" changed.
Mr Blair later told reporters he acknowledged some progress had already been made.
But, speaking on the first leg of a three-day Africa visit, the Prime Minister stressed: "It's important that people in Darfur realise that the international community is determined to ensure that when we talk with the government of Sudan it realises it has to take on these responsibilities and the rebel forces likewise recognise they have responsibilities in this situation and the international focus will not go away while this situation remains outstanding."
Mr Blair, looking fit and relaxed in the sweltering Sudan heat despite his recent heart procedure, flies on later today to Ethiopia for talks with its premier Meles Zenawi before chairing the second meeting of his Africa Commission tomorrow.
The Prime Minister has promised to make the future of Africa one of the centrepieces of Britain's presidency of the G8 group of leading industrialised democracies next year.
Ahead of Mr Blair's arrival:
-- Ismail said Britain could push all sides to reach an agreement at peace talks in NIgeria due to reconvene on October 21, after an earlier round of talks in Abuja collapsed last month and said he hoped for more aid for reconstruction from Britain, one of the biggest aid donors to Darfur.
-- Mr Blair's spokesman said, "Rather than concentrate on threats and sanctions, we would like to focus on trying to get progress that would make sanctions not necessary." British officials say Blair's message to Khartoum officials will be three-fold -- negotiate a settlement with rebels in Darfur; allow "unfettered access" for aid workers; and accept an expanded role for African Union peacekeepers.
Blair, who has pledged to make Africa one of his key policies during 2005, when Britain holds the rotating presidency of both the G8 rich nations' club and the European Union, was scheduled to spend around five hours in Sudan.
After talks with Beshir and Taha, he will hold a press conference, before flying to Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, for a meeting of the Commission for Africa, his personal project designed to galvanize development efforts.
This evening, in Ethiopia, he will have talks with the prime minister, Meles Zenawi. Tomorrow, Mr Blair will make local visits and then outline his vision for Africa in a speech setting out his case for change. International Development Secretary Hilary Benn and Treasury Chief Secretary Paul Boateng are accompanying Mr Blair on the trip.
The stopover in Sudan - the first-ever visit by a British leader since Khartoum got independence from Britain in 1956 - had been kept under wraps for security reasons, with London only confirming the trip after Blair's aircraft took off on Tuesday evening.
Mr Blair will not visit Darfur, with his spokesman saying the limited time available was best used hammering home the international community's message to the Sudanese government. "We know what the situation in Darfur is. The important thing is that something is done about it at government level," said the Prime Minister's spokesman.
Blair's spokesman refused to be drawn on whether Britain supported sanctions against the north African Muslim state, or whether it would join the United States in considering the violence in Darfur as genocide. He said the premier was simply "relaying and re-emphasising" international worries. But he stressed that Blair would expect clear answers on issues such as a ceasefire, peace negotiations and aid efforts. "Those are points which we believe the Sudanese government understand. And I think what we need to see is what the response of the Sudanese government is to the prime minister's visit," he said.
The trip to Sudan is part of Mr Blair's three-day Africa tour, which will also take him to Ethiopia where he will attend a session of the Commission for Africa, an Africa task force launched by himself in February.
Blair will arrive in Addis Ababa today, along with Benn, Treasury chief secretary Paul Boateng and Live Aid founder Bob Geldof, for the opening of the three day meeting of the commission.
Mr Blair will attend the second session of his Commission for Africa in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa. The talks will also be attended by Band Aid star Sir Bob Geldof, 20 years after his appeal to help people starving there raised GBP 90m.
The commission will report in time for its findings to be discussed by the G8 group of leading industrialised nations next year, when Britain will be in charge of both the European Union and the G8 - the club of the world's richest countries.
Mr Blair has promised to make the plight of Africa one of the twin focuses of his chairmanship, along with climate change.
"There is a moral imperative to do this," said International Development Minister Hilary Benn, who will join Blair in Addis Ababa for the two-day meeting starting on Thursday. "If we don't tackle poverty, injustice and inequality round the world, then we're never going to have a safe and secure world in which to live," he told Reuters.
"Something concrete has got to be done this time. Unless the politicians actually do something about unfair trade rules, no amount of aid money is going to solve poverty," said Helen Palmer, of aid agency Oxfam.
The commission aims to propose action from the West on boosting aid, obtaining more debt relief and making trade rules fairer for African exporters. "Then the priorities for Africa itself are tackling conflict and promoting good government," Benn said.
Britain set up the commission, including senior figures from across Africa, earlier this year to highlight to problems in a continent Blair called a "scar on the conscience of the world".
Africa expert Thomas Cargill, of the Royal Institute of International Affairs said the most urgent priorities were bigger investment, pressure on poorly performing governments and tighter controls on Western firms to act in a moral fashion.
- - -
ANNAN'S UN ASSESSMENT
In a stinging U.N. assessment on Monday, Annan said Sudan made no progress last month in stopping attacks on civilians or punishing culprits. Nor did the government make progress in nailing down a ceasefire, he added.
While the U.S. government believes genocide is taking place, two top U.N. human rights watchdogs told the council last week war crimes probably occurred on "a large and systematic scale".
British officials said they would reserve judgement on how to qualify the crisis until a U.N. inquiry.
Britain is one of the largest donors for Darfur, with 62.5 million pounds ($111 million) committed this year
- - -
DONORS NOT MEETING PLEDGES FOR DARFUR AID
Oct 5 (AFP) - The U.S. called Tuesday for international donors to fulfill pledges to provide assistance to stem the crisis in Darfur, accusing some nations of failing to live up to their promises.
"We've been very outspoken about the need for the international community to do more to help the people of Darfur," deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. "It is a problem of a huge scale beyond the capability of any one country".
"There have been pledges from the international community, pledges that are important and necessary, but that have gone unfilled to date," he told reporters. "It's important ... that they be filled."
Ereli did not name the countries that have failed to meet their pledges and was unable to specify the amount of the shortfall although on Monday the World Food Program said it was short some 220 million of the 865 million dollars it needs to feed some 11 million refugees worldwide, including 200,000 from Darfur who have crossed the Sudanese border into Chad.
Late last month at a donors conference in Norway, representatives of the Sudanese government and the southern rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) appealed for the international community to provide about 300 million dollars in aid to cover emergency needs in Darfur.
The United States is the largest single contributor to Darfur aid efforts and on Tuesday, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) gave a 600,000-dollar grant to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to help double the number of human rights monitors there to 16.
To date, Washington has provided 243 million dollars in aid for Darfur, nearly 62 million dollars of which had been earmarked for the refugees in Chad, and expects that figure to rise to nearly 300 million through the end of the next fiscal year, according to USAID.
In addition, the United States has set aside 27.4 million dollars to help fund the African Union monitoring mission in Darfur, USAID said in a statement.
- - -
U.N. SAYS DARFUR CRISIS WILL LAST AT LEAST UNTIL THE END OF NEXT YEAR
No quick end to Darfur humanitarian crisis - U.N.
Here is a copy of an October 6 report via Reuters that says no quick end to Darfur humanitarian crisis in Darfur - it will last at least until the end of next year, a U.N. official warned on Wednesday.
U.N. World Food Programme spokesman Greg Barrow said the crisis would drag on because so many Darfur residents were still in refugee camps, unable to harvest this year or plant crops for 2005.
"The aid crisis is going to continue at least until the end of next year," Barrow said in a briefing for reporters accompanying British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Sudan.
This year's intense media focus on Darfur and a stream of high-level foreign visitors had helped, but the world must not forget the crisis when attention fades, he added.
"This is a very, very precarious situation. The levels of humanitarian aid will need to be sustained at or above the same level as this year."
Barrow said the World Food Programme had received $167 million of its $204 million budget for emergency food aid in Darfur this year. He urged international donors to quickly make up the shortfall and to prepare for further aid next year.
"We're still not there in terms of overall funding."
After years of skirmishes between Arab nomadic tribes and mainly non-Arab farmers over scarce resources, rebels launched a revolt last year. They accuse Khartoum of supporting Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, to loot and burn villages.
The United States has called the violence genocide.
But Sudan has dismissed the charge and denies supporting the Janjaweed militiamen, calling them outlaws.
The United Nations has threatened oil sanctions unless Khartoum controls the violence.
Barrow said U.N. personnel in the region had noticed an improvement in security for relief workers in Darfur, an area the size of France with a population of about six million.
Bandits were, however, still harassing U.N. personnel at the rate of at least one incident a week, he said.
"It is difficult to estimate, if our trucks or personnel get stopped, if it's by the militia or rebels or whoever. We're not talking about people getting killed but being accosted by people with guns," he said.
Barrow urged Blair to press Sudanese officials to keep giving good access for relief trucks and personnel.
"The Sudanese government has already done a lot as a result of international pressure to improve access," he said. "We need them to keep that up."
- - -
BRITISH BASED OXFAM SAYS SITUATION IN DARFUR IS NOT IMPROVING
Aid agencies urged Blair to take a tough line in Sudan
"The situation in Darfur is not improving. Nearly six months after the ceasefire, there are daily reports of violence and insecurity," British-based Oxfam said in a statement.
The charity Save the Children said foreign aid must now focus on lifting Ethiopia out of poverty, rather than just keeping people alive with food handouts.
Spokesman Mike Aaronson, said millions of people in the historically famine-prone northeastern highlands are "worse off and more vulnerable than ever".
He said "lack of political will" by world leaders and "paltry" aid have not helped the nation combat persistent food shortages.
"It is shocking that 20 years after Band Aid millions of children still experience hunger," he said.
"Yet, in the last 20 years, donors have shown a lack of political will and a shortsighted approach to aid that has compounded poverty in Ethiopia."
Ethiopia is one of the poorest nations in the world - the average annual income is GBP 56.
Donor countries must inject more investments in education and health care in a bid to help the country break out of poverty, he said.
"A great deal of money has gone into keeping people alive with food aid," Mr Aaronson added.
"However, in comparison, the sum invested in longer-term development to lift Ethiopia out of the cycle of poverty has been paltry."
- - -
NAME THE COUNTRIES NOT PAYING FOR AID
Why does the UN not name and shame and update its figures?
According to the latest news reports, the U.N. says some 50,000 people have died in Darfur from violence, hunger or disease.
The U.N. complains through the media that countries are not paying for food and aid but it refuses to name those countries. Why?
On the other hand, the U.N. seems to pull figures out of the air and expect donors to pay up based on those figures. If, as they claim, thousands of people are dying each month - how come the figure has been stuck at 50,000 deaths for the past three months? Going by reports, it seems the numbers should have changed by at least 80,000 - 120,000.
USAID predicted 300,000 deaths by Christmas, even if enough aid reached the victims of Darfur.
The World Food Programme and others do of course do great work, but when there is so much at stake it's reasonable to question what exactly is going on. People tend not to donate when they think it won't make any difference. My feelings are that charities and bodies like the UN need to sort this out asap to restore public confidence in the work of the aid agencies (see next report here below).
- - -
SUDAN'S U.N. AMBASSADOR CHALLENGES U.S. OVER 'GENOCIDE'
Today's report from UK Scotsman says Sudan's UN ambassador has challenged the United States to send troops to Darfur if it really believes a genocide is taking place as the US Congress and President George W. Bush's administration have determined. Excerpt:
Elfatih Mohamed Erwa was asked yesterday about the effect of the US "genocide" designations when both Bush and his Democratic challenger John Kerry ruled out sending US troops to end the 19-month conflict in their debate.
"If it is really a genocide they should be committed to send troops," the Sudanese ambassador said. "This is why I don't think they're genuine about its being genocide."
Would US troops really be welcome?
"I won't say I welcome them because I don't have the authority to say that, but if they want to do that, let them talk to us." Erwa said.
US Ambassador John Danforth, when told Erwa raised the possibility of discussing the deployment of US troops, said: "I've never heard of such a thing before. It's certainly an attention grabber."
"It's a curious idea, but I don't think it has a future," he said.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
People in Malaysia show kindness and concern for the children of Darfur
Here is some heartwarming news. Malaysia's Star newspaper and Mercy Malaysia have embarked on a humanitarian aid mission to help the victims of Darfur.
The Star joined hands with Mercy Malaysia to raise funds for a humanitarian aid programme in West Darfur. It has received over 600 cheques since the fund was launched last week.
Malaysians continue to show strong support for the Darfur Children’s Fund with donations totalling some RM76,000 over the past two days.
Tears rolled down the cheeks of Malaysian artist Joe Rozario when he found out that children in Darfur could no longer draw flowers and sunny pictures.
Rozario, 55, was so moved by an article published in The Star that he felt more people should be made aware of their plight.
He immediately whipped out his notepad and started writing a message to the public based on the article. This is what he wrote:
Dear you,
Children in conflict-ridden Darfur, Sudan, are drawing pictures of guns, burning homes and dead bodies.
They do not draw flowers and sunny pictures any more.
Injured and older children lie in El-Geneina Hospital starving, as food is not provided.
There are 1.3 million people who have been driven out of their homes in Darfur in a crisis described as one of the greatest human tragedies today.
You can help these children.
All it takes is RM200 a month to feed a child.
Help!
Donate to Mercy Malaysia
[Full Story and more photos]
Joe Rozario with his message to the public to help the children of Darfur.
- - -
Rajan's latest Sudan Genocide Round-Up
Warm thanks to Malaysian blogger Rajan, blogging in English out of Malaysia, for his great new Sudan Genocide Roundup.
- - -
U.N. hopes larger AU force on ground in Sudan by end of October
UN mission officials in Sudan said Friday they hope an expanded African force will be on the ground in Darfur by the end of October.
Facing the genocide investigation and the threat of U.N. sanctions, Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail told the Security Council on Thursday that Sudan would accept 3,500 African Union troops for Darfur.
- - -
Nivasha peace talks to be held October 7, 2004
At long last, after a four month delay, Sudan's final phase peace agreement talks are due to start on October 7.
According to the following report, SPLM leader John Garang said that the SPLM believes in the importance of obtaining self-rule in Darfur and south and east Sudan.
Here are some excerpts from arabic.news.com Sep 30 - SPLM requests Egypt's assistance for concluding a final peace agreement with Khartoum:
Asked whether or not a final agreement is expected to be reached during Nivasha talks to be held in October 7, he [Garang] said that six protocols have already been signed during the month of June and two supplements should be agreed upon. One is on reaching a cease fire agreement and the other pertains to ways to implement the agreements reached, he said.
He voiced hope that an agreement would be reached on these two supplements as soon as possible.
He claimed that the Sudanese government is acting intendedly to waste time, saying four months have passed after July agreement.
He said a final agreement should have been signed in Nivasha in August or September but it was the Sudanese government which asked for delaying talks due to its preoccupation with Darfur crisis.
He claimed that among the reasons behind the government delay is that it would find itself obliged to divide oil proceeds after signing the agreement in order to get 50%, referring to high oil prices at the present time.
Garang warned of any delay saying it could lead to disintegration of the Sudan and this does not serve the interests of any party.
- - -
Once a deal with the SPLA is struck, other agreements could be concluded
Garang is in Cairo, Al-Bashir threatens to execute his mentor Al-Turabi and the Darfur catastrophe worsens: Gamal Nkrumah examines crisis-ridden Sudan.
Note, SPLM leader John Garang told Weekly Ahram news: "Once a deal with the SPLA is struck, other agreements could be concluded with regards to Darfur and the NDA."
- - -
US denies supporting rebels anymore than they are supporting the Janjaweed
According to swissinfo Sep 30 report, a U.S. State Department official in Washington, who asked not to be named, dismissed the charge by Khartoum that the US is supporting the rebels.
"The whole purpose of the U.S. policy is to end the violence in Sudan. We are not funding, training, providing armaments to, supporting in any way, shape or form the rebels anymore than we are supporting the Janjaweed (militia)," the official said.
- - -
Darfur tragedy may last years
In an apocalyptic new warning, British officials said that the humanitarian disaster in Darfur may worsen and last years.
The British Foreign Office fears that, whatever political agreements are made about Darfur’s future, the hundreds of thousands of civilians driven from their land by government-backed militias are unlikely to be able to return to their homes in time for next year’s crop planting season in April and May.
And they say that could condemn Darfur to another season of starvation and disease. The refugee camps now feeding and housing thousands of internal refugees could become permanent camps, like those in the Palestinian territories, officials say.
"We are a very, very long way from being able to say that circumstances anywhere are good enough for people to return home," one senior official said.
- - -
In Sudan work on laying new oil pipeline begins in the next few weeks
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation bags expansion contract in Sudan.
ONGC is to lay an oil pipeline in Sudan. Work will begin in the next few weeks.
- - -
US LIFTS SANCTIONS ON PAKISTAN
And then sells eighteen fighter jets to Pakistan - as a first installment
ChaiTeaLatte (heh love the title of the post: FILE UNDER BAD FREAKIN' IDEA) points to a report saying the US has lifted sanctions on Pakistan. The US then received an order from Pakistan for eighteen F16 fighter jets - as a first installment.
Note, Pakistan is a non-permanent member of the 15-member Security Council. And was one of the members which did not back the Darfur resolutions, despite urging of council.
- - -
Update Sunday Oct 2 - Here is a copy of a report via Associated Press:
US: Commercial interests impeding aid to Arabs in Darfur
WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell says commercial interests in Sudan were motivating their opposition to a U.S. diplomatic campaign to help the oppressed non-Arab community in Darfur.
Powell singled out the four countries, Russia, China, Algeria and Pakistan, that voted against a U.N. Security Council resolution two weeks ago that set up a commission to explore human rights abuses in the violence-ravaged area of Sudan.
But in a radio interview with Michael Reagan on Tuesday, he did not say which of the four countries he believed were motivated by commercial interests and which by their opposition to the sanctions threatened in the resolution.
Still, it was an exceptional jab by the secretary of state at governments that put business over mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of people.
"There are some of these countries that just don't like the possibility of sanctions, and others that had commercial interests that they thought would not be well-served if they voted against Sudan's interest in this resolution,'' Powell said in the interview.
A text was released Wednesday by the State Department's press office.
Later, at a news conference, Andrew S. Natsios, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, noted China was extracting oil from the African country and Pakistan recently took over Chevron-Texaco's oil concessions.
"I don't know about the other two, but I can tell you Pakistan and China do have commercial interests,'' Natsios said while discussing his Sept. 11-19 trip to Sudan.
Meanwhile, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Ranneberger, who participated in the press briefing, rejected assertions by a top Sudanese official in Khartoum that Sheik Musa Hilal, accused by the State Department of coordinating bloodletting by Arab militia, was a legitimate tribal leader.
Ranneberger said Hilal was a leader of the Janjaweed militia as well as being a tribal leader.
"I think he wears four or five hats,'' the State Department official said.
Natsios said 1.5 million people have been displaced form their homes in Darfur and were in refugee camps, and there was also drought and an approaching locust plague.
The AID administrator said 574 towns had been destroyed while the militia have taken over the homes and herds of African tribes in the region.
"They have nothing left and those animals were basically their savings accounts,'' Natsios said. "The crisis hasn't peaked,'' he said. "It's the malaria season and the worst phase is right now. It's just beginning. And it's going to kill a lot of people.''
At the same time, Natsios said, food was moving in and there were 710 foreign relief workers in Darfur, more than twice the 323 workers there when Powell visited in early July. - AP http://thestaronline.com/news/story
The Star joined hands with Mercy Malaysia to raise funds for a humanitarian aid programme in West Darfur. It has received over 600 cheques since the fund was launched last week.
Malaysians continue to show strong support for the Darfur Children’s Fund with donations totalling some RM76,000 over the past two days.
Tears rolled down the cheeks of Malaysian artist Joe Rozario when he found out that children in Darfur could no longer draw flowers and sunny pictures.
Rozario, 55, was so moved by an article published in The Star that he felt more people should be made aware of their plight.
He immediately whipped out his notepad and started writing a message to the public based on the article. This is what he wrote:
Dear you,
Children in conflict-ridden Darfur, Sudan, are drawing pictures of guns, burning homes and dead bodies.
They do not draw flowers and sunny pictures any more.
Injured and older children lie in El-Geneina Hospital starving, as food is not provided.
There are 1.3 million people who have been driven out of their homes in Darfur in a crisis described as one of the greatest human tragedies today.
You can help these children.
All it takes is RM200 a month to feed a child.
Help!
Donate to Mercy Malaysia
[Full Story and more photos]
Joe Rozario with his message to the public to help the children of Darfur.
- - -
Rajan's latest Sudan Genocide Round-Up
Warm thanks to Malaysian blogger Rajan, blogging in English out of Malaysia, for his great new Sudan Genocide Roundup.
- - -
U.N. hopes larger AU force on ground in Sudan by end of October
UN mission officials in Sudan said Friday they hope an expanded African force will be on the ground in Darfur by the end of October.
Facing the genocide investigation and the threat of U.N. sanctions, Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail told the Security Council on Thursday that Sudan would accept 3,500 African Union troops for Darfur.
- - -
Nivasha peace talks to be held October 7, 2004
At long last, after a four month delay, Sudan's final phase peace agreement talks are due to start on October 7.
According to the following report, SPLM leader John Garang said that the SPLM believes in the importance of obtaining self-rule in Darfur and south and east Sudan.
Here are some excerpts from arabic.news.com Sep 30 - SPLM requests Egypt's assistance for concluding a final peace agreement with Khartoum:
Asked whether or not a final agreement is expected to be reached during Nivasha talks to be held in October 7, he [Garang] said that six protocols have already been signed during the month of June and two supplements should be agreed upon. One is on reaching a cease fire agreement and the other pertains to ways to implement the agreements reached, he said.
He voiced hope that an agreement would be reached on these two supplements as soon as possible.
He claimed that the Sudanese government is acting intendedly to waste time, saying four months have passed after July agreement.
He said a final agreement should have been signed in Nivasha in August or September but it was the Sudanese government which asked for delaying talks due to its preoccupation with Darfur crisis.
He claimed that among the reasons behind the government delay is that it would find itself obliged to divide oil proceeds after signing the agreement in order to get 50%, referring to high oil prices at the present time.
Garang warned of any delay saying it could lead to disintegration of the Sudan and this does not serve the interests of any party.
- - -
Once a deal with the SPLA is struck, other agreements could be concluded
Garang is in Cairo, Al-Bashir threatens to execute his mentor Al-Turabi and the Darfur catastrophe worsens: Gamal Nkrumah examines crisis-ridden Sudan.
Note, SPLM leader John Garang told Weekly Ahram news: "Once a deal with the SPLA is struck, other agreements could be concluded with regards to Darfur and the NDA."
- - -
US denies supporting rebels anymore than they are supporting the Janjaweed
According to swissinfo Sep 30 report, a U.S. State Department official in Washington, who asked not to be named, dismissed the charge by Khartoum that the US is supporting the rebels.
"The whole purpose of the U.S. policy is to end the violence in Sudan. We are not funding, training, providing armaments to, supporting in any way, shape or form the rebels anymore than we are supporting the Janjaweed (militia)," the official said.
- - -
Darfur tragedy may last years
In an apocalyptic new warning, British officials said that the humanitarian disaster in Darfur may worsen and last years.
The British Foreign Office fears that, whatever political agreements are made about Darfur’s future, the hundreds of thousands of civilians driven from their land by government-backed militias are unlikely to be able to return to their homes in time for next year’s crop planting season in April and May.
And they say that could condemn Darfur to another season of starvation and disease. The refugee camps now feeding and housing thousands of internal refugees could become permanent camps, like those in the Palestinian territories, officials say.
"We are a very, very long way from being able to say that circumstances anywhere are good enough for people to return home," one senior official said.
- - -
In Sudan work on laying new oil pipeline begins in the next few weeks
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation bags expansion contract in Sudan.
ONGC is to lay an oil pipeline in Sudan. Work will begin in the next few weeks.
- - -
US LIFTS SANCTIONS ON PAKISTAN
And then sells eighteen fighter jets to Pakistan - as a first installment
ChaiTeaLatte (heh love the title of the post: FILE UNDER BAD FREAKIN' IDEA) points to a report saying the US has lifted sanctions on Pakistan. The US then received an order from Pakistan for eighteen F16 fighter jets - as a first installment.
Note, Pakistan is a non-permanent member of the 15-member Security Council. And was one of the members which did not back the Darfur resolutions, despite urging of council.
- - -
Update Sunday Oct 2 - Here is a copy of a report via Associated Press:
US: Commercial interests impeding aid to Arabs in Darfur
WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell says commercial interests in Sudan were motivating their opposition to a U.S. diplomatic campaign to help the oppressed non-Arab community in Darfur.
Powell singled out the four countries, Russia, China, Algeria and Pakistan, that voted against a U.N. Security Council resolution two weeks ago that set up a commission to explore human rights abuses in the violence-ravaged area of Sudan.
But in a radio interview with Michael Reagan on Tuesday, he did not say which of the four countries he believed were motivated by commercial interests and which by their opposition to the sanctions threatened in the resolution.
Still, it was an exceptional jab by the secretary of state at governments that put business over mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of people.
"There are some of these countries that just don't like the possibility of sanctions, and others that had commercial interests that they thought would not be well-served if they voted against Sudan's interest in this resolution,'' Powell said in the interview.
A text was released Wednesday by the State Department's press office.
Later, at a news conference, Andrew S. Natsios, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, noted China was extracting oil from the African country and Pakistan recently took over Chevron-Texaco's oil concessions.
"I don't know about the other two, but I can tell you Pakistan and China do have commercial interests,'' Natsios said while discussing his Sept. 11-19 trip to Sudan.
Meanwhile, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Ranneberger, who participated in the press briefing, rejected assertions by a top Sudanese official in Khartoum that Sheik Musa Hilal, accused by the State Department of coordinating bloodletting by Arab militia, was a legitimate tribal leader.
Ranneberger said Hilal was a leader of the Janjaweed militia as well as being a tribal leader.
"I think he wears four or five hats,'' the State Department official said.
Natsios said 1.5 million people have been displaced form their homes in Darfur and were in refugee camps, and there was also drought and an approaching locust plague.
The AID administrator said 574 towns had been destroyed while the militia have taken over the homes and herds of African tribes in the region.
"They have nothing left and those animals were basically their savings accounts,'' Natsios said. "The crisis hasn't peaked,'' he said. "It's the malaria season and the worst phase is right now. It's just beginning. And it's going to kill a lot of people.''
At the same time, Natsios said, food was moving in and there were 710 foreign relief workers in Darfur, more than twice the 323 workers there when Powell visited in early July. - AP http://thestaronline.com/news/story
Friday, October 01, 2004
Bashir accuses Washington of arming Darfur rebels; Garang does not oppose sanctions on Khartoum
Copy of Arabic News report 10/1/2004:
The Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has accused the US of training the rebels in Darfur and arming them in order to stand in the face of the government of Khartoum. The leader of the rebels movement in the south, John Garang, said he does not oppose the imposition of sanctions on Khartoum to force her to settle the crisis in Darfur.
Replying to a question on the involvement of foreign forces in Darfur, al-Bashir said in an interview with the Egyptian daily al-Ahram that the USA is behind that. He said "they took the rebels to Eritrea and installed training camps for them and spent money for their armament and al-Thurayya mobile phones. Training and material spending and plans were carried out by foreign forces, especially the USA."
Meanwhile, Garang said in a press conference he held in Cairo that the "sanctions on Sudan might help in rescuing the lives of vulnerable people" in Darfur, in remarks to the UN Security Council resolution of September 18 implying a threat to impose oil sanctions on Khartoum if it does not solve the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/041001/2004100110.html
The Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has accused the US of training the rebels in Darfur and arming them in order to stand in the face of the government of Khartoum. The leader of the rebels movement in the south, John Garang, said he does not oppose the imposition of sanctions on Khartoum to force her to settle the crisis in Darfur.
Replying to a question on the involvement of foreign forces in Darfur, al-Bashir said in an interview with the Egyptian daily al-Ahram that the USA is behind that. He said "they took the rebels to Eritrea and installed training camps for them and spent money for their armament and al-Thurayya mobile phones. Training and material spending and plans were carried out by foreign forces, especially the USA."
Meanwhile, Garang said in a press conference he held in Cairo that the "sanctions on Sudan might help in rescuing the lives of vulnerable people" in Darfur, in remarks to the UN Security Council resolution of September 18 implying a threat to impose oil sanctions on Khartoum if it does not solve the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/041001/2004100110.html
Thursday, September 30, 2004
China sends riot police for peacekeeping mission in Haiti - at the request of the U.N.
The photo here below shows a boy kissing his father, a member of Chinese peacekeeping police, at the International Airport in Beijing, September 17, 2004.
The advance troops of riot police composed of 30 members including four policewomen left for Haiti on Friday, September 17.
At the request of the United Nations, China will send 125 police officers to form a contingent of riot police for a peacekeeping mission in Haiti.
One can't help wondering why the UN Security Council did not ask China to send riot police for peacekeeping mission in Darfur.
China's oil companies are adjacent to Darfur. China gets a lot out of Sudan. What does China do for the Sudanese in return for the exploitation of their land and natural resources?
- - -
QUOTATIONS
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead
- - -
"If we'd been born where they were born and taught what they were taught, we would believe what they believe"
A sign inside a church in Northern Ireland, explaining the origin of intolerance and hate.
The advance troops of riot police composed of 30 members including four policewomen left for Haiti on Friday, September 17.
At the request of the United Nations, China will send 125 police officers to form a contingent of riot police for a peacekeeping mission in Haiti.
One can't help wondering why the UN Security Council did not ask China to send riot police for peacekeeping mission in Darfur.
China's oil companies are adjacent to Darfur. China gets a lot out of Sudan. What does China do for the Sudanese in return for the exploitation of their land and natural resources?
- - -
QUOTATIONS
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead
- - -
"If we'd been born where they were born and taught what they were taught, we would believe what they believe"
A sign inside a church in Northern Ireland, explaining the origin of intolerance and hate.
M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence - First Annual Gandhian Nonviolence Conference October 8-9, 2004
"My life is my message" - M.K.Gandhi
Gandhi quotes:
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
"If my faith burns bright, as I hope it will even if I stand alone, I shall be alive in the grave, and what is more, speaking from it"
- - -
First Annual Gandhian Nonviolence Conference
M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence event information.
Further reading:
The Official Mahatma Gandhi eArchive & Reference Library
M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence
Mahatma Gandhi
Gandhi quotes:
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
"If my faith burns bright, as I hope it will even if I stand alone, I shall be alive in the grave, and what is more, speaking from it"
- - -
First Annual Gandhian Nonviolence Conference
M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence event information.
Further reading:
The Official Mahatma Gandhi eArchive & Reference Library
M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence
Mahatma Gandhi
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
What’s behind the horror in Sudan?
The purpose of this post is to explore and work out my growing unease over what seems to be going on in Sudan. Not sure if my hunches are correct, or what is to be gained by writing about them.
Perhaps I am trying to figure why I find it so difficult to swallow the news that is now being reported on Sudan. Maybe I have lost faith in the UN and the whole political process. Today when I saw a report that quoted Colin Powell's latest on Sudan, my eyes glazed over and the report meant absolutely nothing. For some reason it all sounds hollow, false and manipulative. When the UN churns out another report quoting the latest from Kofi Annan, I'm sure I shan't believe a word of it. For reasons that I am about to explain, it all looks like a murky business and a charade that is being played out to placate the public.
This post is a conversation I'm having with myself, talking out loud about the roles of the UN and US in Sudan, in an attempt to clarify my thoughts on events since April of this year, when I picked up on story from Jim Moore's Journal, and started blogging about genocide in Darfur.
Also, I am asking myself what it means for us to get news on thousands of people being slaughtered, with warnings that many more thousands could be murdered if we don't do something. If we don't do something to help, is technology merely enabling us to be passive voyeurs, ghoulishly watching stories of mass murder unfolding while we sit in the comfort of our cushioned chairs and safe surroundings? If we don't like what we see or hear, are we meant to switch off our computers like we do with the TV and radio and turn a blind eye? Shrug our shoulders?
Decades ago, it would take days or weeks or even months for news to reach us, by which time the event had occurred and there wasn't amything we could do. But these days, with the immediacy of the Internet, we get a rough idea of what is going on in most parts of the world within an hour or even minutes.
Information contained within most media reports on the Sudan seem mainly to originate from carefully constructed press releases issued by all sides, ie regime in Khartoum, Darfur rebels, international community and others that have a vested interested in the Sudan. Very little hard news. It makes one wonder just how much of it is propaganda. Reports by aid agencies are sanitised and pitched for fundraising. Some reporters provide news from the ground in Sudan but not enough to give a true picture of what, and who, is behind the horror in Sudan and why.
Could it all boil down to oil and arms? In a nutshell, yes, I think it could. It seems none of those from outside of Sudan who are involved in the negotiations value the life of a Sudanese nomad as much as their own. Otherwise 50,000 deaths would have been prevented. Could the world's failure to provide practical help, even after the first 10,000 Sudanese were slaughtered, stand as evidence of racism?
If 10,000 murders occurred in the State of Texas, or the countryside of England, there would be tens of thousands of troops on the scene to try and stop such a massacre. Think back to Wako, Texas and heavy tanks firing at the walls of a compound to destroy a sect of civilians that were perceived as posing some sort of threat.
The lives of nomadic Africans do not appear to mean much to the rest of the world: 2 million slaughtered in the Sudan; 50,000 wiped out in Darfur; 800,000 massacred in Rwanda; 3 million in the Congo; a few more million in Uganda ... the list goes on. But 3,000 on 9/11 in New York City goes down in history and changes the world. Why?
Is the answer that life on American soil is of greater value than life on African soil?
Having said that, genocide took place in Bosnia just ten years ago. Bosnia is just a two hour flight away from England. The people murdered in Bosnia were not Africans or Arabs. Genocide took place in Germany some 60 years ago, many Germans were in denial and turned the other cheek.
What is the answer? I am still trying to understand the reasons for mans inhumanity to man. So far, I've discovered genocide has occurred throughout history, will continue to happen and not a lot will change for at least 5,000 years or more. In other words, man is a predator, it is part of human nature and evolution, or so I am told - I'm still trying to get my head around that one.
As an aside note, I once live in London SW1 which is south of the river Thames. I invited someone from North London to dinner. She considered herself as well to do and part of a clique in North London that considered venturing over the other side of the river was a no-no. I chortled and was amazed to discover there were definite north south divides in London.
Seems wherever one goes there are divisions of one kind or another. Maybe it's a natural thing for people to gravitate and gather into little tribes; a sort of comfort zone that's made up of people who think, talk, look and behave in similar ways.
Could there ever be a way for us to do something to stop mans inhumanity to man? Perhaps democracy is not the be all and end all to everything. I've posted on this subject before. Maybe something new will happen: something that has not yet been thought up. Whenever I question the value of democracy, my thoughts turn to Jim Moore's essay the "Second Superpower" - and I get to wondering if communications technology is the thing that puts power into the hands of the people.
Trouble with that is, not enough people seem to care to think about issues deeply enough or feel moved enough to take action. Half can't even be bothered to vote. Most seem to just want others to do their thinking for them, lobby for change and take care of issues.
It's no wonder a handful of greedy ruthless gangs of people dotted around the world feel free to get away with murder and do as they please, creating misery and havoc for millions of others. The wheeling and dealing that goes on unnoticed and unchecked is astounding when you really look into what is going on. The arms and oil trade in particular, not to mention the environment.
In today's information society we get to know what is going on around the world at the press of a button. Does all of this communications technology just enable us to be voyeuristic passive bystanders? Are we supposed to act on the knowledge?
We cannot say we did not know what was going on in Darfur during the past five months. Faced with such information, what can we do about it? I am curious about this aspect of the great new era we now find ourselves living in. Knowledge is power. But, going back to what happened over 60 years ago in Germany: people knew genocide was happening then but felt helpless to do anything about it. What has changed in 60 years?
The UN's reports on Sudan can be extra interesting when they contain hidden or cryptic messages from Kofi Annan. The UN website carried an 'off the cuff' report that quoted Kofi Annan as saying some of what he says in press reports are messages to those on the ground. Which may explain why he seems to come across as speaking with forked tongue half of the time.
After what went on with the UN and the countless number of resolutions over Iraq, it would appear the UN is much more political and not as neutral as it makes out to be.
A few days ago the UN's head of refugees Ruud Lubbers floated, aired, and voiced ideas to the media suggesting that the Government of Sudan give autonomy to Darfur. Mind boggling, and goes to show how the media is used to feed us information they want us to know but not the truth of what is really going on. News reports don't seem to explain things properly. For instance, there is never any mention of the US intelligence base in Africa or what the French are doing with their mirage jets in the area and the 200 troops on the Chad-Sudan border.
Who funded the rebels over the past 19 months; where do their supplies, arms and ammunition arrive from; how come the UN did not choose to impose an arms embargo, as opposed to oil sanctions, on Khartoum?
It's been five months now since I started following daily news on the Sudan. And have still not found a clue that helps answer my original question: why did the regime in Khartoum - along with with the US - after so many years of working together on shaping the north-south peace accords - both see fit to exclude western Sudan from the deal?
In other words, how come the Darfur rebels, chose March 2003 to take up arms in protest against being marginalised, after years of negotiations on the north-south deal? Why did the rebels not protest earlier? Why did the armed rebellion only come to the world's attention in April 2004. The north-south ceasefire agreement was signed in May 2004 and the peace accords were reaching their final phase. Why did the rebels not make their demands known at the negotiating table - why did they start an armed rebellion?
Seems (to me) there is more to the Darfur war than meets the eye. I can't forget seeing reports of oil being discovered in Darfur and near the Sudan-Chad-border, and that there may be plans afoot to lay a new oil pipeline in Darfur.
Back in May I came across news reports that explained what would happen after the peace accords were signed: the UN were to provide a small peacekeeping force in September 2004 to act as an advance party to monitor the peace. followed by, in late December 2004, a much larger UN peacekeeping force.
What I am saying is, ever since May, after 10,000 deaths in Darfur had been reported, and we started blogging about genocide in Sudan - nothing new has really happened that wasn't already on the cards back then. Why? 40,000 more deaths have been reported. 3 million deaths occurred in the Congo, a few million in Uganda. Why the focus on Darfur? Can anyone explain?
Recently Kofi Annan blamed the slow response to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur on donors. The Darfur war started 19 months ago. How much warning do the UN need?
USAID and the UN have since received large donations and further pledges of aid. African Union were recently quoted as saying they expect from the USA much more than the 200 million US dollars provided for the reconstruction of Nigeria (I need to check my facts) in return for providing 5,000 AU peacekeepers for Darfur.
The UN's peackeeping plan for the peace monitoring of Sudan was revealed back in May in readiness for when the north-south peace accord was signed. Who was set to pay for such a force? The US, I guess. So why was it never possible in the past five months for the plan to be brought forward and avoid 40,000 deaths, not to mention the sheer misery and suffering of hundreds of thousands other Sudanese.
Countries that are in talks with Khartoum seem to have a vested interest. Germany won a huge contract for building the new Sudan-Kenya railway. China is contracting Russia to help lay new oil pipelines in Sudan. India and Malaysia have struck new deals with Sudan. Huge contracts are up for grabs for the construction of Sudan, massive sums of money are poised to pour into Sudan from all over the world as soon as peace in Sudan is agreed.
Russia has arms contracts with Sudan. Sudan's ports are being developed. Roads are to be built. There's even talk of oil pipes leading to Libya. Why do the western media not report more in-depth reports?
The details are too long to go into here (I may try and write another post with links that back up what I am saying here) but the Darfur rebels, who must be supported by outside forces, started the rebellion in Darfur with the aim of over throwing or weakening the present regime in Khartoum. No other explanation makes sense. They have dragged out the Darfur peace talks, biding their time and imploring the West to impose sanctions, which are not in Sudan's best interest.
During Sudan's past conflicts, the rebels in the south-north war were backed and supported by outsider influences from within the international community (notably the US) why should the Darfur conflict be any different? Not long ago, I posted a report that described how US consultants were educating and training the rebels now in power in Southern Sudan how to set up and run political their party.
In the year following March 2003, Khartoum reacted heavily in an attempt to quell the armed rebellion in time for the peace accords to be signed. As soon as the deal is signed, Sudan stands to gain a great deal of development funding. Khartoum are holding on to Darfur at any cost for fear of losing control over oil revenues, pipeline developments, and power. Arab tribal leaders each lord it over certain areas of Sudan and don't take orders from or listen to Khartoum because they have no need. They rule their own patch through intimidation and benevolance, and Khartoum lets them get on with it.
The militias that are pro government rallied to quell the rebellion and were supported by Khartoum. Other bandits and outlaws got involved because that is how they make their living, from opportunism, banditry and looting.
So many civilians became victims of the war because the rebels were heavily integrated into the villages of Darfur. It became such a terrible and bloody war because the perpetrators of the atrocities had never heard of human rights or racism. Many it would seem held grudges and past grievances and wanted to drive the rebellion out so they could take over their land.
Hardly anything has ever changed in Sudan. The culture is alien compared to ours in the West. But even in the West has witnessed shocking atrocities, racism and human rights abuses, ie Nazis, Klu Klux Klan, native North American Indians and Aborigines in Australia, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo - to name a few.
What is going on in Sudan is hugely complex with a long history. What has bothered me about Darfur, all along is: why the armed rebellion started when it did - so close to the peace accords being finalised. Who is funding, supporting and advising the Darfur rebels, where are their bases in Europe and Eritrea, who are they, how do they live and afford to jet to Paris, Germany, London, USA, Africa, etc.
Where do the Darfur rebels get their confidence? Why is the international community not applying pressure or levelling accusations of genocide at them when they keep walking out of the Darfur peace talks, and refuse to sign humanitarian agreements? Seems all sides are guilty of using innocent civilians as pawns.
The terrible war in Darfur could have been resolved a long time ago by the UN forcing the warring parties to stay at the negotiating table until an agreement was reached.
OK, any government will fight rebellions and refuse to give in to demands - but when it seems impossible for Khartoum to quell the rebellion, why was Khartoum not forced by the UN to declare a state of emergency?
Khartoum are guilty of holding on to power at all costs. Rebels are guilty of pursuing power at all costs. Both are responsible for the bloodbath and death of so many. There are so many gangs and tribes and different groups from within Sudan (and out) not to mention the Ugandan rebels responsible for horrific atrocities (how are they funded?) Fighting is a way of life for these people, it is all they know and is how they make their living.
When Kofi Annan and Colin Powell visited Khartoum 3 months ago, my understanding was that Colin Powell gave Khartoum an ultimatum of 90 days to provide umimpeded access for humanitarian assistance, and if it did not happen, Khartoum would be forced to accept the international community's offer of help. This Khartoum agreed to but on one condition: that the word genocide was dropped. My guess is that Colin Powell agreed to this, which explains why all press releases up until recently, stuck to using any word except genocide. Khartoum does not know whether to trust the US or not, which is why it ran around asking countries like Libya and Turkey to mediate. Surely Khartoum must suspect the US of being behind the Darfur rebels? Maybe the threat of a genocide enquiry forces Khartoum to have to deal with the US whether it likes it or not.
In the past weeks, as the 90 days neared towards October 1st, Colin Powell began using the word genocide as a stick - along with the promise of millions of US dollars as the carrot.
Louise Arbour's recent trip to Khartoum could have been to address the question as to what would happen to the regime in Khartoum if genocide was pursued in the international court. My feelings over the past few months have been that the only solution was to give assurances to Khartoum that they would not face prosecution and that it was better if they co-operated and worked at becoming a regime that everybody could do business with. Khartoum has two things going for it: oil and counter terrorism intelligence.
The reason for publishing the below report, along with a few others, is to see how it fits in with my theories. I can find no other credible reason why the Darfur peace talks have taken so long to conclude or why the rebels have the confidence to keep walking out of peace talks - and why the UN and international community is not coming down on the rebels as hard as they are on the regime in Khartoum.
It seems fishy to me that there is so little news about the rebels or the oil companies operating in Sudan, what is said in the Darfur peace talks, why pressure is not being levelled at the rebels to lay down arms and why it is OK for the rebels to hold up humanitarian agreements being signed. Three or four months ago, when the rebels were holed up in Darfur - they were actually stopping aid from getting in - the UN even ended up in negotiations with them. But the rebels were not criticised for causing suffering. And who are all these people, who can tell who is who - for all I know the rebels could pose as so-called Janjaweed or be wearing Sudanese army uniforms. Where are all the bodies - and where are the photographs. Yes there have been pictures of the refugees and scorched villages but no evidence of who actually carried out the atrocities.
Many of the civilians, as far as I can gather, are nomads that move from area to area depending on the weather. After the floods, greenery shoots up out of land that was parched. The rebels have satellite phones, trucks, petrol, arms -- who supplies all this stuff, where do they get their food and funds over the past 19 months? No report has ever explained these details. I shall now concentrate on unearthing even the most outlandish of reports to see if a picture emerges on who is all involved and where the support is coming from -- and, what are the motives of the ones providing support.
- - -
September 17, 2004, report from the Socialist Worker, copied here in full, along with links to further reading.
LAST WEEK, the Bush administration was forced to admit that a genocide is taking place in western Sudan--carried out by a regime that the U.S. had hoped to bring into its camp. Stories of the horror committed against the African farming villages in Sudan’s Darfur region finally emerged in the U.S. media, but the U.S. government’s interest is anything but compassionate.
The finding of genocide is calculated to pressure the United Nations (UN) Security Council to threaten sanctions and force a UN inquiry that could lead to charges of war crimes. Council member China may block these actions, but plans, backed by the U.S., to enlarge an armed African Union force in Sudan will go forward.
DAVID WHITEHOUSE looks at the background to the crisis--and the cynical role played by the U.S.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NINETEEN MONTHS of scorched-earth assaults--conducted by mounted Arab militias in concert with government planes and helicopters--have forced most of the African population in Sudan’s western Darfur region to flee. According to UN estimates, 50,000 people have been killed, and 1.4 million people have fled their homes--and now live in poorly supplied refugee camps.
At least 3,000 more fled new assaults in the past two weeks. But reports indicate that attacks have slowed down--because the objective of destroying most of the area’s African villages is already accomplished.
To discourage resettlement, the militias--known as "janjaweed"--have poisoned many of the arid region’s wells with animal carcasses and human corpses. Some of the janjaweed now haunt the fringes of the refugee camps and kill--or rape--those who stray outside. Others have been integrated into the Sudanese army or the "police" forces that patrol the camps.
U.S. officials have predicted that as many as 1 million more could die by the end of the year from hunger and disease if foreign assistance does not increase. The UN’s World Food Program reports that donors have so far provided less than half of the $194 million necessary for relief operations in 2004.
Although donors may boost their support for air drops of food to the camps--many of which are now isolated by seasonal rains--direct Western intervention is unlikely. One reason is that the Sudan government has warmed to the idea of an increased presence of African Union (AU) troops in Darfur--something that is favored by both European and U.S. officials.
Darfur, a region the size of Texas, currently has a token force of 300 AU soldiers, but a UN-AU plan calls for 3,000 more by the end of the year, plus 1,200 AU police. The janjaweed were estimated to number 20,000 in July.
The Sudan government launched its campaign of ethnic cleansing in early 2003 in response to a local insurgency by the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). The rebels, mostly Islamic farmers who identify themselves as African, demanded an end to government neglect of the region, President Umar al-Bashir’s campaign to "Arabize" local administration and his backing of the earliest janjaweed raids.
The janjaweed are drawn from nomadic livestock herders--also Muslims--who consider themselves Arabs. Conflicts between farmers and herders over land and water have sharpened since the late 1960s when prolonged drought caused the Sahara Desert to expand.
The government exploited these conflicts and subcontracted to the janjaweed the work of combating the insurgency--allowing them in return to keep what they can loot. The central government perfected this method--of swallowing up an anti-government insurgency with a local ethnic slaughter--in two decades of war in the country’s south against the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA).
Under pressure from the U.S., the SPLA and Bashir reached an agreement in May to share power and the south’s oil wealth. Washington hoped the arrangement in the south would show that Bush’s "war on terror" had brought peace--and would allow U.S. oil companies back into Sudan. But the Darfur crisis has forced Bush to distance himself again from the Bashir regime.
So the U.S. is looking for ways to convert the indigenous rebel groups into proxies of the West. There’s already a connection. From its inception last year, the SLA has received support from Chad, a U.S. client. This assistance is part of a decades-old practice of the region’s governments to back insurgencies of ethnic or political allies against neighboring states.
And there’s another connection. The SLA’s strikes against government outposts in 2003 are widely seen to have been inspired by the headway made by the rebels of southern Sudan, the SPLA, thanks to U.S. backing. This open support followed quiet, privatized support from U.S. Christian evangelicals who backed the Christian and animist fighters of the SPLA against the Islamists of the central government.
As Darfur’s Africans teeter on the brink of catastrophe, the SLA and JEM have taken a hard line in negotiations with the government--clearly emboldened by the idea that the U.S. stands behind them. But the more deeply the U.S. gets involved, the more the rebels will become pawns in the U.S. game for regional influence.
And to some extent, the SLA and JEM may already be sucked up into the ethnic war. Although they took up arms to press real grievances, reports from Al Jazeera and The Economist in August alleged that the rebels themselves began to engage in ethnic cleansing.
Even military intervention by the African Union is not neutral. Its most prominent backer is the regime of Nigerian military strongman Olusegun Obasanjo, who wants to curry favor with the U.S. and elevate Nigeria as a reliable "sub-imperial" power. Any sizable intervention would depend on the U.S. for equipment and arms, so the AU’s efforts will represent an indirect form of Western intervention--the path that Bush may prefer as the U.S. seeks to develop African proxies for future use.
While U.S. troops--and credibility--are tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush may settle for a long-term siege of Sudan, through UN pressure and AU troops. Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke last week of divisions within the Bashir regime between hardliners and moderates--the administration’s way of saying that they hope for a coup by elements friendly to the U.S.
U.S. puts oil profits first
U.S. RELATIONS with Sudan have shifted sharply more than once in the past 20 years, but not out of concern for the welfare of ordinary Sudanese. Whichever party held the White House, the key question was always how the U.S. could gain advantage over its geopolitical rivals--especially in exploiting the region’s oil wealth.
U.S. oil giant Chevron discovered major oil deposits in southern Sudan in 1979-80. Within three years, the Sudanese government unleashed a genocidal war against Christians and animists in the south--clearing villagers out of the oilfields so that Western oil companies could set up shop in "uninhabited" territories.
The U.S. maintained close relations with the government through this period, even as Sudan’s army and its local Islamic proxy militias began enslaving thousands of southern women and children. At the same time, Sudan further cemented its connection to the U.S. by backing Eritrea’s struggle for independence from Ethiopia--a cause that the U.S. suddenly embraced when Ethiopia aligned itself with Washington’s Cold War rival, the former USSR, in the late 1970s.
Under Jimmy Carter, Sudan became the sixth biggest recipient of U.S. military aid by 1980. But as the Cold War came to an end a decade later--and the Sudanese civil war disrupted Western access to the oilfields--the U.S. began to lose interest.
In 1991, George Bush Sr. made a full reversal of support when Sudan opposed his war against Iraq. He withdrew U.S. food aid to Sudan in the middle of a famine.
Under Bill Clinton, two developments drove the U.S. toward an even sharper confrontation with Sudan. One was a campaign of Christian fundamentalists--including in George W. Bush’s hometown of Midlands, Texas--to pressure Clinton to support the southern rebels. The other was Sudan’s harboring of forces hostile to the U.S., including Osama bin Laden, who lived in the country from 1991 to 1996.
Following the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton "retaliated" with a cruise missile attack on targets supposedly associated with bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network. The assault destroyed Sudan’s al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant, which produced half of Sudan’s medicines and all of its chloroquine, a malaria medicine.
Clinton claimed--falsely, as the administration admitted a year later--that the factory was producing chemical weapons for al-Qaeda. But in 2000, Clinton’s last year as president, President Bashir began to cooperate in rooting out the most militant anti-American Islamist groups in the country--setting the stage for Bush Jr. to attempt a re-reversal of policy.
George W. Bush sought "constructive engagement" with Bashir, especially because trade sanctions that date from the Clinton years have cut U.S. companies out of the reviving oil business. Sudan’s reserves could produce oil at half the rate of Kuwait if fully developed.
While the U.S. was disengaged, Malaysia, India and China--the U.S.’s looming new geopolitical rival--made oil connections to Sudan. China has even become Sudan’s top foreign investor and controls the oil concession in southern Darfur.
Bush pressured the Christian-animist rebels in the south to negotiate with the government. As talks progressed toward the May power-sharing deal--after 2 million civilian deaths since 1983--Bush hoped that the new war in Darfur would just go away.
To sweeten the deal, Bush promised to take Sudan off the list of "states that sponsor terror"--just when the atrocities in Darfur grabbed the world’s attention. So no one should believe the latest twists and turns in the U.S. relationship with Sudan have anything to do with concern for the Sudanese people.
Further reading:
Sudan peace agreement paves way for increased oil production by Brian Smith dated 16 January 2004.
Aid Groups Foresee Prolonged War by Gunnar Willum and Bjørn Willum US Plan to Feed Sudan Rebels Rapped
Sept 30 AP Wire - Chad Denies Supporting Rebellion in Sudan
Sep 30 Reuters - Sudan says U.S. armed Darfur rebels - Egypt paper
Sep 30 BBC - Who are Sudan's Darfur rebels?
Sep 30 report - Ugandan army captures LRA leader's son
Sep 30 aljazeera.com - Al Bashir: U.S. arms Darfur rebels
Sept 30 Middle East Online - Beshir accuses US of supporting Darfur rebels
- - -
Update on Monday October 4 - copy of report by Peter Beaumont in The Observer October 3, 2004
US 'hyping' Darfur genocide fears
American warnings that Darfur is heading for an apocalyptic humanitarian catastrophe have been widely exaggerated by administration officials, it is alleged by international aid workers in Sudan. Washington's desire for a regime change in Khartoum has biased their reports, it is claimed.
The government's aid agency, USAID, says that between 350,000 and a million people could die in Darfur by the end of the year. Other officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, have accused the Sudanese government of presiding over a 'genocide' that could rival those in Bosnia and Rwanda.
But the account has been comprehensively challenged by eyewitness reports from aid workers and by a new food survey of the region. The nutritional survey of Sudan's Darfur region, by the UN World Food Programme, says that although there are still high levels of malnutrition among under-fives in some areas, the crisis is being brought under control.
'It's not disastrous,' said one of those involved in the WFP survey, 'although it certainly was a disaster earlier this year, and if humanitarian assistance declines, this will have very serious negative consequences.'
The UN report appears to confirm food surveys conducted by other agencies in Darfur which also stand in stark contrast to the dire US descriptions of the food crisis.
The most dramatic came from Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, who told UN officials: 'We estimate right now, if we get relief in we'll lose a third of a million people and, if we don't, the death rates could be dramatically higher, approaching a million people.'
A month later, a second senior official, Roger Winter, USAID's assistant administrator, briefed foreign journalists in Washington that an estimated 30,000 people had been killed during the on-going crisis in Darfur, with another 50,000 deaths from malnutrition and disease, largely among the huge populations fleeing the violence. He described the emergency as 'humanitarian disaster of the first magnitude'.
By 9 September Powell was in front of the Congressional Foreign Relations Committee accusing Sudan of 'genocide', a charge rejected by officials of both the European and African Unions and also privately by British officials.
'I've been to a number of camps during my time here,' said one aid worker, 'and if you want to find death, you have to go looking for it. It's easy to find very sick and under-nourished children at the therapeutic feeding centres, but that's the same wherever you go in Africa.'
Another aid worker told The Observer : 'It suited various governments to talk it all up, but they don't seem to have thought about the consequences. I have no idea what Colin Powell's game is, but to call it genocide and then effectively say, "Oh, shucks, but we are not going to do anything about that genocide" undermines the very word "genocide".'
While none of the aid workers and officials interviewed by The Observer denied there was a crisis in Darfur - or that killings, rape and a large-scale displacement of population had taken place - many were puzzled that it had become the focus of such hyperbolic warnings when there were crises of similar magnitude in both northern Uganda and eastern Congo.
Concern about USAID's role as an honest broker in Darfur have been mounting for months, with diplomats as well as aid workers puzzled over its pronouncements and one European diplomat accusing it of 'plucking figures from the air'.
Under the Bush administration, the work of USAID has become increasingly politicised. But over Sudan, in particular, two of its most senior officials have long held strong personal views. Both Natsios, a former vice-president of the Christian charity World Vision, and Winter have long been hostile to the Sudanese government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1318643,00.html
Perhaps I am trying to figure why I find it so difficult to swallow the news that is now being reported on Sudan. Maybe I have lost faith in the UN and the whole political process. Today when I saw a report that quoted Colin Powell's latest on Sudan, my eyes glazed over and the report meant absolutely nothing. For some reason it all sounds hollow, false and manipulative. When the UN churns out another report quoting the latest from Kofi Annan, I'm sure I shan't believe a word of it. For reasons that I am about to explain, it all looks like a murky business and a charade that is being played out to placate the public.
This post is a conversation I'm having with myself, talking out loud about the roles of the UN and US in Sudan, in an attempt to clarify my thoughts on events since April of this year, when I picked up on story from Jim Moore's Journal, and started blogging about genocide in Darfur.
Also, I am asking myself what it means for us to get news on thousands of people being slaughtered, with warnings that many more thousands could be murdered if we don't do something. If we don't do something to help, is technology merely enabling us to be passive voyeurs, ghoulishly watching stories of mass murder unfolding while we sit in the comfort of our cushioned chairs and safe surroundings? If we don't like what we see or hear, are we meant to switch off our computers like we do with the TV and radio and turn a blind eye? Shrug our shoulders?
Decades ago, it would take days or weeks or even months for news to reach us, by which time the event had occurred and there wasn't amything we could do. But these days, with the immediacy of the Internet, we get a rough idea of what is going on in most parts of the world within an hour or even minutes.
Information contained within most media reports on the Sudan seem mainly to originate from carefully constructed press releases issued by all sides, ie regime in Khartoum, Darfur rebels, international community and others that have a vested interested in the Sudan. Very little hard news. It makes one wonder just how much of it is propaganda. Reports by aid agencies are sanitised and pitched for fundraising. Some reporters provide news from the ground in Sudan but not enough to give a true picture of what, and who, is behind the horror in Sudan and why.
Could it all boil down to oil and arms? In a nutshell, yes, I think it could. It seems none of those from outside of Sudan who are involved in the negotiations value the life of a Sudanese nomad as much as their own. Otherwise 50,000 deaths would have been prevented. Could the world's failure to provide practical help, even after the first 10,000 Sudanese were slaughtered, stand as evidence of racism?
If 10,000 murders occurred in the State of Texas, or the countryside of England, there would be tens of thousands of troops on the scene to try and stop such a massacre. Think back to Wako, Texas and heavy tanks firing at the walls of a compound to destroy a sect of civilians that were perceived as posing some sort of threat.
The lives of nomadic Africans do not appear to mean much to the rest of the world: 2 million slaughtered in the Sudan; 50,000 wiped out in Darfur; 800,000 massacred in Rwanda; 3 million in the Congo; a few more million in Uganda ... the list goes on. But 3,000 on 9/11 in New York City goes down in history and changes the world. Why?
Is the answer that life on American soil is of greater value than life on African soil?
Having said that, genocide took place in Bosnia just ten years ago. Bosnia is just a two hour flight away from England. The people murdered in Bosnia were not Africans or Arabs. Genocide took place in Germany some 60 years ago, many Germans were in denial and turned the other cheek.
What is the answer? I am still trying to understand the reasons for mans inhumanity to man. So far, I've discovered genocide has occurred throughout history, will continue to happen and not a lot will change for at least 5,000 years or more. In other words, man is a predator, it is part of human nature and evolution, or so I am told - I'm still trying to get my head around that one.
As an aside note, I once live in London SW1 which is south of the river Thames. I invited someone from North London to dinner. She considered herself as well to do and part of a clique in North London that considered venturing over the other side of the river was a no-no. I chortled and was amazed to discover there were definite north south divides in London.
Seems wherever one goes there are divisions of one kind or another. Maybe it's a natural thing for people to gravitate and gather into little tribes; a sort of comfort zone that's made up of people who think, talk, look and behave in similar ways.
Could there ever be a way for us to do something to stop mans inhumanity to man? Perhaps democracy is not the be all and end all to everything. I've posted on this subject before. Maybe something new will happen: something that has not yet been thought up. Whenever I question the value of democracy, my thoughts turn to Jim Moore's essay the "Second Superpower" - and I get to wondering if communications technology is the thing that puts power into the hands of the people.
Trouble with that is, not enough people seem to care to think about issues deeply enough or feel moved enough to take action. Half can't even be bothered to vote. Most seem to just want others to do their thinking for them, lobby for change and take care of issues.
It's no wonder a handful of greedy ruthless gangs of people dotted around the world feel free to get away with murder and do as they please, creating misery and havoc for millions of others. The wheeling and dealing that goes on unnoticed and unchecked is astounding when you really look into what is going on. The arms and oil trade in particular, not to mention the environment.
In today's information society we get to know what is going on around the world at the press of a button. Does all of this communications technology just enable us to be voyeuristic passive bystanders? Are we supposed to act on the knowledge?
We cannot say we did not know what was going on in Darfur during the past five months. Faced with such information, what can we do about it? I am curious about this aspect of the great new era we now find ourselves living in. Knowledge is power. But, going back to what happened over 60 years ago in Germany: people knew genocide was happening then but felt helpless to do anything about it. What has changed in 60 years?
The UN's reports on Sudan can be extra interesting when they contain hidden or cryptic messages from Kofi Annan. The UN website carried an 'off the cuff' report that quoted Kofi Annan as saying some of what he says in press reports are messages to those on the ground. Which may explain why he seems to come across as speaking with forked tongue half of the time.
After what went on with the UN and the countless number of resolutions over Iraq, it would appear the UN is much more political and not as neutral as it makes out to be.
A few days ago the UN's head of refugees Ruud Lubbers floated, aired, and voiced ideas to the media suggesting that the Government of Sudan give autonomy to Darfur. Mind boggling, and goes to show how the media is used to feed us information they want us to know but not the truth of what is really going on. News reports don't seem to explain things properly. For instance, there is never any mention of the US intelligence base in Africa or what the French are doing with their mirage jets in the area and the 200 troops on the Chad-Sudan border.
Who funded the rebels over the past 19 months; where do their supplies, arms and ammunition arrive from; how come the UN did not choose to impose an arms embargo, as opposed to oil sanctions, on Khartoum?
It's been five months now since I started following daily news on the Sudan. And have still not found a clue that helps answer my original question: why did the regime in Khartoum - along with with the US - after so many years of working together on shaping the north-south peace accords - both see fit to exclude western Sudan from the deal?
In other words, how come the Darfur rebels, chose March 2003 to take up arms in protest against being marginalised, after years of negotiations on the north-south deal? Why did the rebels not protest earlier? Why did the armed rebellion only come to the world's attention in April 2004. The north-south ceasefire agreement was signed in May 2004 and the peace accords were reaching their final phase. Why did the rebels not make their demands known at the negotiating table - why did they start an armed rebellion?
Seems (to me) there is more to the Darfur war than meets the eye. I can't forget seeing reports of oil being discovered in Darfur and near the Sudan-Chad-border, and that there may be plans afoot to lay a new oil pipeline in Darfur.
Back in May I came across news reports that explained what would happen after the peace accords were signed: the UN were to provide a small peacekeeping force in September 2004 to act as an advance party to monitor the peace. followed by, in late December 2004, a much larger UN peacekeeping force.
What I am saying is, ever since May, after 10,000 deaths in Darfur had been reported, and we started blogging about genocide in Sudan - nothing new has really happened that wasn't already on the cards back then. Why? 40,000 more deaths have been reported. 3 million deaths occurred in the Congo, a few million in Uganda. Why the focus on Darfur? Can anyone explain?
Recently Kofi Annan blamed the slow response to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur on donors. The Darfur war started 19 months ago. How much warning do the UN need?
USAID and the UN have since received large donations and further pledges of aid. African Union were recently quoted as saying they expect from the USA much more than the 200 million US dollars provided for the reconstruction of Nigeria (I need to check my facts) in return for providing 5,000 AU peacekeepers for Darfur.
The UN's peackeeping plan for the peace monitoring of Sudan was revealed back in May in readiness for when the north-south peace accord was signed. Who was set to pay for such a force? The US, I guess. So why was it never possible in the past five months for the plan to be brought forward and avoid 40,000 deaths, not to mention the sheer misery and suffering of hundreds of thousands other Sudanese.
Countries that are in talks with Khartoum seem to have a vested interest. Germany won a huge contract for building the new Sudan-Kenya railway. China is contracting Russia to help lay new oil pipelines in Sudan. India and Malaysia have struck new deals with Sudan. Huge contracts are up for grabs for the construction of Sudan, massive sums of money are poised to pour into Sudan from all over the world as soon as peace in Sudan is agreed.
Russia has arms contracts with Sudan. Sudan's ports are being developed. Roads are to be built. There's even talk of oil pipes leading to Libya. Why do the western media not report more in-depth reports?
The details are too long to go into here (I may try and write another post with links that back up what I am saying here) but the Darfur rebels, who must be supported by outside forces, started the rebellion in Darfur with the aim of over throwing or weakening the present regime in Khartoum. No other explanation makes sense. They have dragged out the Darfur peace talks, biding their time and imploring the West to impose sanctions, which are not in Sudan's best interest.
During Sudan's past conflicts, the rebels in the south-north war were backed and supported by outsider influences from within the international community (notably the US) why should the Darfur conflict be any different? Not long ago, I posted a report that described how US consultants were educating and training the rebels now in power in Southern Sudan how to set up and run political their party.
In the year following March 2003, Khartoum reacted heavily in an attempt to quell the armed rebellion in time for the peace accords to be signed. As soon as the deal is signed, Sudan stands to gain a great deal of development funding. Khartoum are holding on to Darfur at any cost for fear of losing control over oil revenues, pipeline developments, and power. Arab tribal leaders each lord it over certain areas of Sudan and don't take orders from or listen to Khartoum because they have no need. They rule their own patch through intimidation and benevolance, and Khartoum lets them get on with it.
The militias that are pro government rallied to quell the rebellion and were supported by Khartoum. Other bandits and outlaws got involved because that is how they make their living, from opportunism, banditry and looting.
So many civilians became victims of the war because the rebels were heavily integrated into the villages of Darfur. It became such a terrible and bloody war because the perpetrators of the atrocities had never heard of human rights or racism. Many it would seem held grudges and past grievances and wanted to drive the rebellion out so they could take over their land.
Hardly anything has ever changed in Sudan. The culture is alien compared to ours in the West. But even in the West has witnessed shocking atrocities, racism and human rights abuses, ie Nazis, Klu Klux Klan, native North American Indians and Aborigines in Australia, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo - to name a few.
What is going on in Sudan is hugely complex with a long history. What has bothered me about Darfur, all along is: why the armed rebellion started when it did - so close to the peace accords being finalised. Who is funding, supporting and advising the Darfur rebels, where are their bases in Europe and Eritrea, who are they, how do they live and afford to jet to Paris, Germany, London, USA, Africa, etc.
Where do the Darfur rebels get their confidence? Why is the international community not applying pressure or levelling accusations of genocide at them when they keep walking out of the Darfur peace talks, and refuse to sign humanitarian agreements? Seems all sides are guilty of using innocent civilians as pawns.
The terrible war in Darfur could have been resolved a long time ago by the UN forcing the warring parties to stay at the negotiating table until an agreement was reached.
OK, any government will fight rebellions and refuse to give in to demands - but when it seems impossible for Khartoum to quell the rebellion, why was Khartoum not forced by the UN to declare a state of emergency?
Khartoum are guilty of holding on to power at all costs. Rebels are guilty of pursuing power at all costs. Both are responsible for the bloodbath and death of so many. There are so many gangs and tribes and different groups from within Sudan (and out) not to mention the Ugandan rebels responsible for horrific atrocities (how are they funded?) Fighting is a way of life for these people, it is all they know and is how they make their living.
When Kofi Annan and Colin Powell visited Khartoum 3 months ago, my understanding was that Colin Powell gave Khartoum an ultimatum of 90 days to provide umimpeded access for humanitarian assistance, and if it did not happen, Khartoum would be forced to accept the international community's offer of help. This Khartoum agreed to but on one condition: that the word genocide was dropped. My guess is that Colin Powell agreed to this, which explains why all press releases up until recently, stuck to using any word except genocide. Khartoum does not know whether to trust the US or not, which is why it ran around asking countries like Libya and Turkey to mediate. Surely Khartoum must suspect the US of being behind the Darfur rebels? Maybe the threat of a genocide enquiry forces Khartoum to have to deal with the US whether it likes it or not.
In the past weeks, as the 90 days neared towards October 1st, Colin Powell began using the word genocide as a stick - along with the promise of millions of US dollars as the carrot.
Louise Arbour's recent trip to Khartoum could have been to address the question as to what would happen to the regime in Khartoum if genocide was pursued in the international court. My feelings over the past few months have been that the only solution was to give assurances to Khartoum that they would not face prosecution and that it was better if they co-operated and worked at becoming a regime that everybody could do business with. Khartoum has two things going for it: oil and counter terrorism intelligence.
The reason for publishing the below report, along with a few others, is to see how it fits in with my theories. I can find no other credible reason why the Darfur peace talks have taken so long to conclude or why the rebels have the confidence to keep walking out of peace talks - and why the UN and international community is not coming down on the rebels as hard as they are on the regime in Khartoum.
It seems fishy to me that there is so little news about the rebels or the oil companies operating in Sudan, what is said in the Darfur peace talks, why pressure is not being levelled at the rebels to lay down arms and why it is OK for the rebels to hold up humanitarian agreements being signed. Three or four months ago, when the rebels were holed up in Darfur - they were actually stopping aid from getting in - the UN even ended up in negotiations with them. But the rebels were not criticised for causing suffering. And who are all these people, who can tell who is who - for all I know the rebels could pose as so-called Janjaweed or be wearing Sudanese army uniforms. Where are all the bodies - and where are the photographs. Yes there have been pictures of the refugees and scorched villages but no evidence of who actually carried out the atrocities.
Many of the civilians, as far as I can gather, are nomads that move from area to area depending on the weather. After the floods, greenery shoots up out of land that was parched. The rebels have satellite phones, trucks, petrol, arms -- who supplies all this stuff, where do they get their food and funds over the past 19 months? No report has ever explained these details. I shall now concentrate on unearthing even the most outlandish of reports to see if a picture emerges on who is all involved and where the support is coming from -- and, what are the motives of the ones providing support.
- - -
September 17, 2004, report from the Socialist Worker, copied here in full, along with links to further reading.
LAST WEEK, the Bush administration was forced to admit that a genocide is taking place in western Sudan--carried out by a regime that the U.S. had hoped to bring into its camp. Stories of the horror committed against the African farming villages in Sudan’s Darfur region finally emerged in the U.S. media, but the U.S. government’s interest is anything but compassionate.
The finding of genocide is calculated to pressure the United Nations (UN) Security Council to threaten sanctions and force a UN inquiry that could lead to charges of war crimes. Council member China may block these actions, but plans, backed by the U.S., to enlarge an armed African Union force in Sudan will go forward.
DAVID WHITEHOUSE looks at the background to the crisis--and the cynical role played by the U.S.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NINETEEN MONTHS of scorched-earth assaults--conducted by mounted Arab militias in concert with government planes and helicopters--have forced most of the African population in Sudan’s western Darfur region to flee. According to UN estimates, 50,000 people have been killed, and 1.4 million people have fled their homes--and now live in poorly supplied refugee camps.
At least 3,000 more fled new assaults in the past two weeks. But reports indicate that attacks have slowed down--because the objective of destroying most of the area’s African villages is already accomplished.
To discourage resettlement, the militias--known as "janjaweed"--have poisoned many of the arid region’s wells with animal carcasses and human corpses. Some of the janjaweed now haunt the fringes of the refugee camps and kill--or rape--those who stray outside. Others have been integrated into the Sudanese army or the "police" forces that patrol the camps.
U.S. officials have predicted that as many as 1 million more could die by the end of the year from hunger and disease if foreign assistance does not increase. The UN’s World Food Program reports that donors have so far provided less than half of the $194 million necessary for relief operations in 2004.
Although donors may boost their support for air drops of food to the camps--many of which are now isolated by seasonal rains--direct Western intervention is unlikely. One reason is that the Sudan government has warmed to the idea of an increased presence of African Union (AU) troops in Darfur--something that is favored by both European and U.S. officials.
Darfur, a region the size of Texas, currently has a token force of 300 AU soldiers, but a UN-AU plan calls for 3,000 more by the end of the year, plus 1,200 AU police. The janjaweed were estimated to number 20,000 in July.
The Sudan government launched its campaign of ethnic cleansing in early 2003 in response to a local insurgency by the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). The rebels, mostly Islamic farmers who identify themselves as African, demanded an end to government neglect of the region, President Umar al-Bashir’s campaign to "Arabize" local administration and his backing of the earliest janjaweed raids.
The janjaweed are drawn from nomadic livestock herders--also Muslims--who consider themselves Arabs. Conflicts between farmers and herders over land and water have sharpened since the late 1960s when prolonged drought caused the Sahara Desert to expand.
The government exploited these conflicts and subcontracted to the janjaweed the work of combating the insurgency--allowing them in return to keep what they can loot. The central government perfected this method--of swallowing up an anti-government insurgency with a local ethnic slaughter--in two decades of war in the country’s south against the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA).
Under pressure from the U.S., the SPLA and Bashir reached an agreement in May to share power and the south’s oil wealth. Washington hoped the arrangement in the south would show that Bush’s "war on terror" had brought peace--and would allow U.S. oil companies back into Sudan. But the Darfur crisis has forced Bush to distance himself again from the Bashir regime.
So the U.S. is looking for ways to convert the indigenous rebel groups into proxies of the West. There’s already a connection. From its inception last year, the SLA has received support from Chad, a U.S. client. This assistance is part of a decades-old practice of the region’s governments to back insurgencies of ethnic or political allies against neighboring states.
And there’s another connection. The SLA’s strikes against government outposts in 2003 are widely seen to have been inspired by the headway made by the rebels of southern Sudan, the SPLA, thanks to U.S. backing. This open support followed quiet, privatized support from U.S. Christian evangelicals who backed the Christian and animist fighters of the SPLA against the Islamists of the central government.
As Darfur’s Africans teeter on the brink of catastrophe, the SLA and JEM have taken a hard line in negotiations with the government--clearly emboldened by the idea that the U.S. stands behind them. But the more deeply the U.S. gets involved, the more the rebels will become pawns in the U.S. game for regional influence.
And to some extent, the SLA and JEM may already be sucked up into the ethnic war. Although they took up arms to press real grievances, reports from Al Jazeera and The Economist in August alleged that the rebels themselves began to engage in ethnic cleansing.
Even military intervention by the African Union is not neutral. Its most prominent backer is the regime of Nigerian military strongman Olusegun Obasanjo, who wants to curry favor with the U.S. and elevate Nigeria as a reliable "sub-imperial" power. Any sizable intervention would depend on the U.S. for equipment and arms, so the AU’s efforts will represent an indirect form of Western intervention--the path that Bush may prefer as the U.S. seeks to develop African proxies for future use.
While U.S. troops--and credibility--are tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush may settle for a long-term siege of Sudan, through UN pressure and AU troops. Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke last week of divisions within the Bashir regime between hardliners and moderates--the administration’s way of saying that they hope for a coup by elements friendly to the U.S.
U.S. puts oil profits first
U.S. RELATIONS with Sudan have shifted sharply more than once in the past 20 years, but not out of concern for the welfare of ordinary Sudanese. Whichever party held the White House, the key question was always how the U.S. could gain advantage over its geopolitical rivals--especially in exploiting the region’s oil wealth.
U.S. oil giant Chevron discovered major oil deposits in southern Sudan in 1979-80. Within three years, the Sudanese government unleashed a genocidal war against Christians and animists in the south--clearing villagers out of the oilfields so that Western oil companies could set up shop in "uninhabited" territories.
The U.S. maintained close relations with the government through this period, even as Sudan’s army and its local Islamic proxy militias began enslaving thousands of southern women and children. At the same time, Sudan further cemented its connection to the U.S. by backing Eritrea’s struggle for independence from Ethiopia--a cause that the U.S. suddenly embraced when Ethiopia aligned itself with Washington’s Cold War rival, the former USSR, in the late 1970s.
Under Jimmy Carter, Sudan became the sixth biggest recipient of U.S. military aid by 1980. But as the Cold War came to an end a decade later--and the Sudanese civil war disrupted Western access to the oilfields--the U.S. began to lose interest.
In 1991, George Bush Sr. made a full reversal of support when Sudan opposed his war against Iraq. He withdrew U.S. food aid to Sudan in the middle of a famine.
Under Bill Clinton, two developments drove the U.S. toward an even sharper confrontation with Sudan. One was a campaign of Christian fundamentalists--including in George W. Bush’s hometown of Midlands, Texas--to pressure Clinton to support the southern rebels. The other was Sudan’s harboring of forces hostile to the U.S., including Osama bin Laden, who lived in the country from 1991 to 1996.
Following the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton "retaliated" with a cruise missile attack on targets supposedly associated with bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network. The assault destroyed Sudan’s al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant, which produced half of Sudan’s medicines and all of its chloroquine, a malaria medicine.
Clinton claimed--falsely, as the administration admitted a year later--that the factory was producing chemical weapons for al-Qaeda. But in 2000, Clinton’s last year as president, President Bashir began to cooperate in rooting out the most militant anti-American Islamist groups in the country--setting the stage for Bush Jr. to attempt a re-reversal of policy.
George W. Bush sought "constructive engagement" with Bashir, especially because trade sanctions that date from the Clinton years have cut U.S. companies out of the reviving oil business. Sudan’s reserves could produce oil at half the rate of Kuwait if fully developed.
While the U.S. was disengaged, Malaysia, India and China--the U.S.’s looming new geopolitical rival--made oil connections to Sudan. China has even become Sudan’s top foreign investor and controls the oil concession in southern Darfur.
Bush pressured the Christian-animist rebels in the south to negotiate with the government. As talks progressed toward the May power-sharing deal--after 2 million civilian deaths since 1983--Bush hoped that the new war in Darfur would just go away.
To sweeten the deal, Bush promised to take Sudan off the list of "states that sponsor terror"--just when the atrocities in Darfur grabbed the world’s attention. So no one should believe the latest twists and turns in the U.S. relationship with Sudan have anything to do with concern for the Sudanese people.
Further reading:
Sudan peace agreement paves way for increased oil production by Brian Smith dated 16 January 2004.
Aid Groups Foresee Prolonged War by Gunnar Willum and Bjørn Willum US Plan to Feed Sudan Rebels Rapped
Sept 30 AP Wire - Chad Denies Supporting Rebellion in Sudan
Sep 30 Reuters - Sudan says U.S. armed Darfur rebels - Egypt paper
Sep 30 BBC - Who are Sudan's Darfur rebels?
Sep 30 report - Ugandan army captures LRA leader's son
Sep 30 aljazeera.com - Al Bashir: U.S. arms Darfur rebels
Sept 30 Middle East Online - Beshir accuses US of supporting Darfur rebels
- - -
Update on Monday October 4 - copy of report by Peter Beaumont in The Observer October 3, 2004
US 'hyping' Darfur genocide fears
American warnings that Darfur is heading for an apocalyptic humanitarian catastrophe have been widely exaggerated by administration officials, it is alleged by international aid workers in Sudan. Washington's desire for a regime change in Khartoum has biased their reports, it is claimed.
The government's aid agency, USAID, says that between 350,000 and a million people could die in Darfur by the end of the year. Other officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, have accused the Sudanese government of presiding over a 'genocide' that could rival those in Bosnia and Rwanda.
But the account has been comprehensively challenged by eyewitness reports from aid workers and by a new food survey of the region. The nutritional survey of Sudan's Darfur region, by the UN World Food Programme, says that although there are still high levels of malnutrition among under-fives in some areas, the crisis is being brought under control.
'It's not disastrous,' said one of those involved in the WFP survey, 'although it certainly was a disaster earlier this year, and if humanitarian assistance declines, this will have very serious negative consequences.'
The UN report appears to confirm food surveys conducted by other agencies in Darfur which also stand in stark contrast to the dire US descriptions of the food crisis.
The most dramatic came from Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, who told UN officials: 'We estimate right now, if we get relief in we'll lose a third of a million people and, if we don't, the death rates could be dramatically higher, approaching a million people.'
A month later, a second senior official, Roger Winter, USAID's assistant administrator, briefed foreign journalists in Washington that an estimated 30,000 people had been killed during the on-going crisis in Darfur, with another 50,000 deaths from malnutrition and disease, largely among the huge populations fleeing the violence. He described the emergency as 'humanitarian disaster of the first magnitude'.
By 9 September Powell was in front of the Congressional Foreign Relations Committee accusing Sudan of 'genocide', a charge rejected by officials of both the European and African Unions and also privately by British officials.
'I've been to a number of camps during my time here,' said one aid worker, 'and if you want to find death, you have to go looking for it. It's easy to find very sick and under-nourished children at the therapeutic feeding centres, but that's the same wherever you go in Africa.'
Another aid worker told The Observer : 'It suited various governments to talk it all up, but they don't seem to have thought about the consequences. I have no idea what Colin Powell's game is, but to call it genocide and then effectively say, "Oh, shucks, but we are not going to do anything about that genocide" undermines the very word "genocide".'
While none of the aid workers and officials interviewed by The Observer denied there was a crisis in Darfur - or that killings, rape and a large-scale displacement of population had taken place - many were puzzled that it had become the focus of such hyperbolic warnings when there were crises of similar magnitude in both northern Uganda and eastern Congo.
Concern about USAID's role as an honest broker in Darfur have been mounting for months, with diplomats as well as aid workers puzzled over its pronouncements and one European diplomat accusing it of 'plucking figures from the air'.
Under the Bush administration, the work of USAID has become increasingly politicised. But over Sudan, in particular, two of its most senior officials have long held strong personal views. Both Natsios, a former vice-president of the Christian charity World Vision, and Winter have long been hostile to the Sudanese government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1318643,00.html
Monday, September 27, 2004
Sudan okays more Darfur observers - Canada offers to train African troops
Sudan has told the African Union (AU) and United Nations it would welcome a proposed increase in the African military force protecting AU observers monitoring a ceasefire agreement in Darfur, a newspaper reported today (Monday).
Agriculture Minister Majzoub al-Khalia Ahmed was quoted by Al-Rai Al-Aam daily as saying the government had sent official messages to the two organisations giving its consent to more African troops.
Details would be discussed with the AU, said Ahmed, who is Sudan's chief delegate to stalled negotiations with Darfur rebels.
- - -
Sudanese president says opposition party can stand if leader denounced
President Omar el-Bashir vowed yesterday (Sunday) to allow the opposition Popular Congress Party, which he accuses in a failed coup attempt, to resume its full political activities if it denounces and isolates its leader, Hassan Turabi.
"They, and we, all know this work has been masterminded by Turabi," he told leaders of trade unions and other popular organisations. "Let them (party members) come out, denounce Hassan Turabi and isolate him from the party and then we are ready to allow the Popular Congress to resume its full political activities."
The party's newspaper will be allowed to resume publication and the party's offices can open again if the party denounces Turabi, he said. Both were shut down in April.
- - -
UN braces for influx of Darfur refugees as dry season ends
U.N. aid workers are readying themselves for an influx of refugees from Darfur into Chad as people in the western Sudan region take advantage of the end of the rainy season.
Refugees say they are fleeing strikes by Sudanese planes followed by raids by pro-government militiamen on camels and horses.
The UN refugee agency has contingency plans for the arrival of up to 70,000 more refugees in Chad before the end of the year and another 100,000 in 2005.
- - -
Refugees tired of sitting around for twelve years
Excerpt from a South African news report today, entitled 'Darfur refugees, no more hope':
"Now, 12 years later, the Sudanese in Kakuma are desperately tired of war. Although peace talks have been going on since 2002 and a landmark agreement signed in Kenya in May, the outcome is still uncertain.
The Kenyan mediator, Lazarus Sumbeiywo, told dpa this week that "the situation is delicate", adding that he believes the Darfur situation has put the talks "quite far back". Asked if the good intentions of both parties could be trusted when talks resume in Kenya on October 7, Sumbeiywo could only answer with a forceful "No!""
- - -
The United Nations' top envoy for Sudan, Jan Pronk, is to brief the U.N. Security Council later this week as it considers what action to take against Khartoum, that may include calling for an investigation into charges of genocide in Darfur, and possible sanctions against its oil industry unless it protect the region's population.
On Saturday Mr Pronk called for a large and swift deployment of African Union peacekeepers with a mandate to protect civilians and monitor Sudanese security forces on the ground in Darfur. "We need many thousands of African Union troops with a broad mandate, quick deployment, big numbers," he said Saturday evening.
In the interview on Saturday he said Sudanese government officials had most recently told him they were willing to accept a larger but unspecified number of African Union troops with greater responsibilities, also unspecified.
"I need a positive reaction to my proposal," he said, adding that 5,000 would be the minimum number of troops required for patrolling Darfur, an area as large as France. "Of course it is slow, but pressure works."
- - -
Canada offers to train African troops
Canada will help train African troops to try to stop the Darfur crisis, Prime Minister Paul Martin said yesterday. The African Union has been told Canada stands ready “to help train those troops” and provide military equipment such as flak jackets,
Mr. Martin did not say where this training might occur, nor how many veteran Canadian peacekeepers might be available to do it. Discussions with the African Union along these lines “are in an exploratory phase,” said Melanie Gruer, Mr. Martin's press secretary.
Mr. Martin made the offer last week when he met AU leaders at the UN, but “nothing has been fleshed out at this point,” Ms. Gruer said.
Despite his frustrations with UN decision making, Mr. Martin said the world body's approval is essential for military interventions. “We don't want unilateral action by one country alone.”
Agriculture Minister Majzoub al-Khalia Ahmed was quoted by Al-Rai Al-Aam daily as saying the government had sent official messages to the two organisations giving its consent to more African troops.
Details would be discussed with the AU, said Ahmed, who is Sudan's chief delegate to stalled negotiations with Darfur rebels.
- - -
Sudanese president says opposition party can stand if leader denounced
President Omar el-Bashir vowed yesterday (Sunday) to allow the opposition Popular Congress Party, which he accuses in a failed coup attempt, to resume its full political activities if it denounces and isolates its leader, Hassan Turabi.
"They, and we, all know this work has been masterminded by Turabi," he told leaders of trade unions and other popular organisations. "Let them (party members) come out, denounce Hassan Turabi and isolate him from the party and then we are ready to allow the Popular Congress to resume its full political activities."
The party's newspaper will be allowed to resume publication and the party's offices can open again if the party denounces Turabi, he said. Both were shut down in April.
- - -
UN braces for influx of Darfur refugees as dry season ends
U.N. aid workers are readying themselves for an influx of refugees from Darfur into Chad as people in the western Sudan region take advantage of the end of the rainy season.
Refugees say they are fleeing strikes by Sudanese planes followed by raids by pro-government militiamen on camels and horses.
The UN refugee agency has contingency plans for the arrival of up to 70,000 more refugees in Chad before the end of the year and another 100,000 in 2005.
- - -
Refugees tired of sitting around for twelve years
Excerpt from a South African news report today, entitled 'Darfur refugees, no more hope':
"Now, 12 years later, the Sudanese in Kakuma are desperately tired of war. Although peace talks have been going on since 2002 and a landmark agreement signed in Kenya in May, the outcome is still uncertain.
The Kenyan mediator, Lazarus Sumbeiywo, told dpa this week that "the situation is delicate", adding that he believes the Darfur situation has put the talks "quite far back". Asked if the good intentions of both parties could be trusted when talks resume in Kenya on October 7, Sumbeiywo could only answer with a forceful "No!""
- - -
The United Nations' top envoy for Sudan, Jan Pronk, is to brief the U.N. Security Council later this week as it considers what action to take against Khartoum, that may include calling for an investigation into charges of genocide in Darfur, and possible sanctions against its oil industry unless it protect the region's population.
On Saturday Mr Pronk called for a large and swift deployment of African Union peacekeepers with a mandate to protect civilians and monitor Sudanese security forces on the ground in Darfur. "We need many thousands of African Union troops with a broad mandate, quick deployment, big numbers," he said Saturday evening.
In the interview on Saturday he said Sudanese government officials had most recently told him they were willing to accept a larger but unspecified number of African Union troops with greater responsibilities, also unspecified.
"I need a positive reaction to my proposal," he said, adding that 5,000 would be the minimum number of troops required for patrolling Darfur, an area as large as France. "Of course it is slow, but pressure works."
- - -
Canada offers to train African troops
Canada will help train African troops to try to stop the Darfur crisis, Prime Minister Paul Martin said yesterday. The African Union has been told Canada stands ready “to help train those troops” and provide military equipment such as flak jackets,
Mr. Martin did not say where this training might occur, nor how many veteran Canadian peacekeepers might be available to do it. Discussions with the African Union along these lines “are in an exploratory phase,” said Melanie Gruer, Mr. Martin's press secretary.
Mr. Martin made the offer last week when he met AU leaders at the UN, but “nothing has been fleshed out at this point,” Ms. Gruer said.
Despite his frustrations with UN decision making, Mr. Martin said the world body's approval is essential for military interventions. “We don't want unilateral action by one country alone.”
Darfur misery has complex roots - the political arguments and suffering of the people are set to continue
Reporting from the Chad-Sudan border, BBC World Affairs correspondent Mark Doyle describes the border region between Chad and Sudan as being one of the harshest and most remote environments on earth.
"There is no ideal place to have a refugee crisis but as locations go this is surely among the worst," he says.
According to his latest report, "Darfur misery has complex roots", the politics of the crisis show how difficult the situation will be to resolve - the political arguments, and the suffering of the people of the border area, are set to continue.
Seems the Governor of West Darfur, Sulieman Abdala Adan, said the most serious problems were not generated by the SLA but by a second rebel movement, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). It was the JEM, Governor Adan said, who had sabotaged all of the attempts at brokering peace. He accused the JEM of being the "military wing" of the Popular Congress, the opposition movement that was over the weekend accused by the government of mounting a coup attempt in Khartoum.
In a BBC radio interview, UN refugee chief Mr Lubbers, floated the idea of limited autonomy for the Darfur region within the framework of a sovereign Sudanese state. Some Sudanese officials cautiously welcomed the idea in public. But in private other senior figures were said to be extremely irritated by Mr Lubbers' intervention, saying it was not his role to make such controversial political suggestions.
"There is no ideal place to have a refugee crisis but as locations go this is surely among the worst," he says.
According to his latest report, "Darfur misery has complex roots", the politics of the crisis show how difficult the situation will be to resolve - the political arguments, and the suffering of the people of the border area, are set to continue.
Seems the Governor of West Darfur, Sulieman Abdala Adan, said the most serious problems were not generated by the SLA but by a second rebel movement, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). It was the JEM, Governor Adan said, who had sabotaged all of the attempts at brokering peace. He accused the JEM of being the "military wing" of the Popular Congress, the opposition movement that was over the weekend accused by the government of mounting a coup attempt in Khartoum.
In a BBC radio interview, UN refugee chief Mr Lubbers, floated the idea of limited autonomy for the Darfur region within the framework of a sovereign Sudanese state. Some Sudanese officials cautiously welcomed the idea in public. But in private other senior figures were said to be extremely irritated by Mr Lubbers' intervention, saying it was not his role to make such controversial political suggestions.
UK cancelling poor nations' debt
Labour Party Conference in Brighton started yesterday. Bono will be speaking at some point.
Today, the UK announced it will write off its share of debts owed by the world's poorest countries to the World Bank. The move will put pressure on other major creditors such as the US, Japan and Germany to follow suit at meetings of the IMF and World Bank later this week.
France and Canada are already understood to be planning similar announcements. Full Story
Today, the UK announced it will write off its share of debts owed by the world's poorest countries to the World Bank. The move will put pressure on other major creditors such as the US, Japan and Germany to follow suit at meetings of the IMF and World Bank later this week.
France and Canada are already understood to be planning similar announcements. Full Story
Sunday, September 26, 2004
UN attacks Darfur 'fear and rape' and finds Government of Sudan as a whole in denial about the scale and severity of the problem
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has said more than a million people displaced by the Darfur conflict are living in a "climate of fear".
Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, described refugee camps as "prisons without walls" and said more than a million people displaced by the Darfur conflict are living in a "climate of fear" and Sudan was "in denial" about the extent of rape in and around them.
Aid workers in Darfur have said women have been raped or attacked when they have left the camps to hunt for firewood.
While the authorities have admitted there is some rape, they have said the problem is not widespread, accusing the women exaggerating their stories.
"I think the government as a whole is in denial about the scale and the severity of the problem," Ms Arbour said. She said refugees could not envisage going home because they did not trust the authorities to protect them.
Her comments came at the end of a week-long visit to the remote region. More later.
- - -
Arabs are ‘not responsible for atrocities’
This morning, American blogger Mike Pechar of Interested-Participant emailed me a link to a report that says the Western media is deceiving the world into thinking that the Arabs are responsible for the atrocities in Darfur, according to Obeid Hasbullah Dico, a former member of the West Darfur parliament (pictured below).
Mike felt compelled to pass the report on and post a response. Thanks Mike. It's always good to hear from readers and see what they are saying about conflicting reports.
Here below is a photo from the report.
Arab tribal leaders (from left) Ramadhan Daju Hassan, Mohammed Idris Maghrib and former member of parliament Obeid Habullah Dico calling for peace in West Darfur, Sudan.
Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, described refugee camps as "prisons without walls" and said more than a million people displaced by the Darfur conflict are living in a "climate of fear" and Sudan was "in denial" about the extent of rape in and around them.
Aid workers in Darfur have said women have been raped or attacked when they have left the camps to hunt for firewood.
While the authorities have admitted there is some rape, they have said the problem is not widespread, accusing the women exaggerating their stories.
"I think the government as a whole is in denial about the scale and the severity of the problem," Ms Arbour said. She said refugees could not envisage going home because they did not trust the authorities to protect them.
Her comments came at the end of a week-long visit to the remote region. More later.
- - -
Arabs are ‘not responsible for atrocities’
This morning, American blogger Mike Pechar of Interested-Participant emailed me a link to a report that says the Western media is deceiving the world into thinking that the Arabs are responsible for the atrocities in Darfur, according to Obeid Hasbullah Dico, a former member of the West Darfur parliament (pictured below).
Mike felt compelled to pass the report on and post a response. Thanks Mike. It's always good to hear from readers and see what they are saying about conflicting reports.
Here below is a photo from the report.
Arab tribal leaders (from left) Ramadhan Daju Hassan, Mohammed Idris Maghrib and former member of parliament Obeid Habullah Dico calling for peace in West Darfur, Sudan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)